RE: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf at tndh.net>]

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