RE: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Valdis,


> Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> And unfortunately, a lot of the Just Does Not Work stuff are
> applications like H.323 and VOIP that Joe Sixpack actually
> *might* be interested in.

Unfortunately, there is no single reason [protocol or app xyz] does not
work over NAT. When [protocol or app xyz] does not work, it's a
combination of _two_ things.

1. The protocol designer designed a protocol that is not NAT-capable
therefore the protocol designer is stupid.

2. The network administrator tries to run a protocol that is not
NAT-capable over NAT therefore the network administrator is stupid.

As a protocol designer, I will say that the network administrator is the
one being stupid because if s/he even understood the basics of protocol
design s/he would understand why I have to embed the port number in the
packet.

As a network administrator, I will say that the protocol designer is the
one being stupid because if s/he had any clue about what it takes to
operate a network s/he would not have designed a protocol that could not
cross NAT.

Conclusion: this leads us nowhere.

Michel.




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]