>>>>> "Tony" == Tony Hain <alh-ietf@xxxxxxxx> writes:
Tony> 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.
Tony> Since you are the one that is routinely taking the
Tony> operator's position, why should we allow punching holes in
Tony> the IETF nat when that will never happen in a real ISP? No
Tony> ISP is going to trust their customer base to modify the
Tony> configuration of their infrastructure, so whatever the IETF
Tony> experiment ends up being has to mimic that reality.
I think that real ISPs will ship NATs that comply with behave. If you
think that address independent and endpoint independent mapping
behavior with endpoint dependent filtering behavior counts as punching
holes then I disagree with you.
Why will ISPs support this? Because their customers voip phones and
games will want it.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf