Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

[jbates at brightok.net (Jack Bates)]

Roger Marquis wrote:
> If this were really an issue I'd expect my nieces and nephews, all of 
> whom are big
> game players, would have mentioned it.  They haven't though, despite 
> being behind
> cheap NATing CPE from D-Link and Netgear.

Disable the uPNP (some routers lack it, and yes, it breaks and microsoft 
will tell you to get uPNP capable NAT routers or get a new ISP).

uPNP at a larger scale? Would require some serious security and 
scalability analysis.

> Arguments against NAT uniformly fail to give credit to these security 
> considerations,

Your argument has nothing to do with this part of the thread and 
discussion of why implementing NAT at a larger scale is bad. I guess it 
might have something to do in other tangents of supporting NAT66.

Jack