Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition

[Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig at gmx.net>]

Hi Keith,

Keith Moore wrote:
> > Most application protocols work just fine behind NAT. FTP works with
> > an ugly work-around. The main protocol that breaks down is SIP.
> >
> >     
>
> there are a couple of problems with this analysis:
>
> one is that it considers only application protocols that are in
> widespread use.  there are lots of applications that are used by limited
> communities that are nevertheless important.

Namely?


>   and of course, since NATs
> are so pervasive, most of the applications that are in widespread use
> have been made to work with NAT (often at tremendous expense, and
> reduced reliability).
>   
Could you explain the tremendous expense a bit more?


> another problem is that it only considers current applications.  a big
> part of the problem with NAT is that it inhibits the
> development/deployment of useful new applications.
>   

As Phillip stated, I don't see the problem with future applications. 
Compare this with the security aspects that are taken care of much more 
than before when developing new applications NAT traversal is just 
another thing to think about as a protocol designer.

Ciao
Hannes

> Keith
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>   


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf