Tony Hain wrote: > 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. What's to say that the audio streams can't be carried over v6? The encoders weren't streaming over v6 this last time but the icecast server that was employed for 69 and 70 has a AAAA record and the application is listening on all 3 of it's v6 addresses... Some people actually used v6 to retrieve the stream probably without knowing they were and I didn't hear screaming except when I broke them on Tuesday. > Tony > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf