At Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:19:03 -0800, 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. Tony, I'm trying to understand on what evidence you're basing this assertion. Remember that the IETF hole punching techniques only implicitly modify the configuration of the NAT, relying on the ordinary NAT state management mechanisms. I would encourage you to read draft-sipping-stucker-media-path-middleboxes-00.txt, which describes the sorts of enforcement mechanisms that 3G style providers are starting to deploy, which indeed do incorporate hole punching mechanisms for the media traffic. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf