On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Ole Jacobsen <ole@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If by "IPSec" you mean what the marketing folks call VPN, then so far it > has worked just fine. > > Muticast, VOIP and the rest of stuff you mention probably does NOT work, > but my point was that this is NOT what most business travellers want. > A retorical question. How do business travellers know that they don't want them, if they've never seen them demonstrated, because NAT limited the availablility of them to the point where their availability couldn't be relied upon. Not only may the next "killer app" not be the next "killer app" because it doesn't work with NAT, the next "killer app" may have already been invented a year ago, but wasn't able to be deployed because of the prevalance of NAT. Not only don't we know, we also don't know what we may be missing. This is the problem with NAT - it appears to be a nice easy solution, until you realise that the devil is in the details. Keith Moore has put together a good list of the things NAT breaks at http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/what-nats-break.html a related document, also by Keith, which also addresses some issues influenced by NAT is "Dubious Assumptions about IPv6" http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/ipv6/dubious-assumptions.html Regards, Mark. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf