henning,
good stuff...
people would do well to read this -
also, all attempts to fix NATs so as to ameliorate these problems
have _exactly_ the same deployment complexity as IPv6 - there's a
quote somewhere from yakov rehkter to this effect (can't find it
exactly, but he was coming the ther way saying why dont we use NATs
instead of v6 - same difference)
by the way, at least one router vendor has now lost a large contract
to a competitor becuase it couldn't provide v6 routing (forwardig,
yes, routing, no).... so perhaps we'll see the situation change quite
fast now:-)
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Henning Schulzrinne typed:
>>It might be useful to point out more clearly the common characteristics
>>of protocols that are broken by NATs. These include, in particular,
>>protocols that use one connection to establish another data flow. Such
>>protocols include ftp, SIP and RTSP (the latter is not mentioned yet in
>>the draft, but NATs also interfere with its operation). Note that unless
>>we forego such control protocol designs altogether, NATs in principle
>>break these unless every host has an external DNS mapping. (Thus, in
>>reference to a recent message to just design NAT-friendly protocols,
>>this means in practice that such "out-of-band" designs could not be
>>supported by this NATy version of the Internet. In effect, this leads to
>>the abomination of carrying real-time data in HTTP connections.)
>>
>>Other protocol designs are those that are symmetric rather than
>>client-server based. This affects all Internet telephony or event-based
>>protocols (IM and generalizations) unless they maintain an outbound
>>connection with a server acting as their representative to the globally
>>routed Internet. The latter obviously does not address the media stream
>>addressing problems.
>>
>>--
>>Henning Schulzrinne http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs
>>
cheers
jon
