Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > The double NAT approach is much closer to what the actual > transition is going to look like. The only difference is that > I think we might just be able to work out a viable means of > punching holes so that video-conferencing works if we actually > set our minds to it. Since you are the one that is routinely taking the operator's position, why should we allow punching holes in the IETF nat when that will never happen in a real ISP? No ISP is going to trust their customer base to modify the configuration of their infrastructure, so whatever the IETF experiment ends up being has to mimic that reality. The only exception I would make is to route the audio streams around the nat so people that can't attend are not completely cut off. Other than that, if you are there you are living the future. IPv6 plus multiple layers of IPv4-nat, with trust boundary issues included. Tony _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf