A workaround, maybe?

well, as of now there's no 'officiall' nat. Lots of people are upset about this, so it may change. there are already IPv6 NAT devices being built, but NAT doesn't exist in the IPv6 standard. One of the ideas behing IPv6 was to make sure there are enough addresses available so that nat isn't needed. NAT really is kind of a pain in the ass.

remember, nat was first introduced as a workaround for the lack of IPv4 addresses available...an unintended benefit is the security.
 
um ok yeah
I went off on a short reading jaunt re ipv6 and nat
and saw that the issue is mainly one of how v6 isn't being adopted

yep I always thought of network address translation as a means
to create a simple firewall

other than more addresses than we'd need for quite sometime
what other real benefits wil IPv6 bring...?
 
I got off the phone with Hughes, again, a little bit ago.
his time, the guy said I need to setup VPN. So now I've
gotta check out all that.

Thanks guyz. I'll check all that info out too. :)

I also found out the the sat is runnig through some kind
of proxy on the isp side too. :confused:
 
you are right, the tech support does suck.

this shouldn't be that hard. bride the sucker or enable port forwarding.

vpn over satellite is 'not optimal'.
two words: latency.
(though i hear there have been advances in this area and it's no where near as bad as it used to be)
 
Considering that geostationary satellites are located 30,000km away from Earth and assuming the wave travels at the speed of light, you'll still have a latency of at least 200ms.
 
It is laggy, compared to the cable. The cable is a 3Mbs though,
where the sat is only 1.5.
It has a hesitation, but does ok after connecting.
It's supposed to have some kinda new technology that compensates
somehow for the travel time.:shrug:

There's quite a bit of talk out there on this, I just haven't
quite found the right answer yet.:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top