North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

once again: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user

  • From: Roeland Meyer
  • Date: Sun Sep 09 06:05:40 2001

|> From: Adam McKenna [mailto:[email protected]]
|> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 4:49 PM

|> I realized that the NAT argument is just a smokescreen which 
|> enables Meyer to 
|> continue his prefix filtering flamewar.  The sooner you all 
|> stop paying
|> attention to him, the better off this list will be.

Aside from the fact that you seem to have some personal grudge. You are
wrong. For one thing, this was, until now, far from flamewar. What you have
done, however, is akin to invoking "Nazi".

You may not care that NAT issues are restricting the distribution of ICANN's
deliberations, but many other do. Folks here may not like H.323 but it is,
unfortunately, the best tool we have. Those that can't afford to have static
IP addresses will not be able to participate fully. FYI, the Montevideo
sessions are going on now. Travel expenses are onerous and telephony
expenses are almost as bad. VOIP is the only means that we can do global
participation, at reasonable expense and within ICANN budget (cheap) whilst
not bankrupting the participants. Client applications are almost universally
available, at little to zero cost. Server-side code is widely available as
open-source. The only thing mucked up is the stuff in the middle. Sir, that
involves network operations, by ANY stretch of the imagination, and bringing
that point up is not flamewar. 

If you can come up with something better then do so. BTW, I think it's a
rotten shame that the major ISPs aren't doing something to help with this.
I'm not talking about donations to ICANN either. I'm talking about
resources, connectivity, and other sorely needed assistance. There should be
no reason that the Berkman Center is the only resource provider. Except for
randy, mike, patrick, and very few others, you guys have your very own
constituency fercrisakes and y'all aren't doing squat! "I gave at the
office" ain't cuttin' the mustard.

No one behind a NAT boundary can participate in the online meetings (the
info of which was sent in my original message, forwarded from the DNSO-GA).
That we took a few detours, in these discussions, is the nature of
unmoderated group discussions.

Certain operational policies are hampering the business development of the
internet. They break the Internet.

1) UDRP and uncertainty over DN ownership (being addressed in ICANN/DNSO).
2) Anti-mailer relay activities eliminate certain business models.
3) Instability and unreliability of access makes business nervous
(NorthPoint, ATT-CA?)
3a) NAT breaks end2end connectivity with end-users (see H.323 for examples).
3b) lack of true multi-homing capability.
3c) routing issues
3d) etc.

If I may don my marketing hat for a mo; from what I'm seeing, VOIP
conferencing may be the next killer-app of the Internet and may be the ONLY
thing that'll let anyone else play evenly with the ILECs. Like firearms, it
levels the playing field, for the little guys. It also does in the IXCs,
unless they go there first. So, unless you can come up with something better
than H.323, I suggest that we find means to support it rather than breaking
it further. NAT is a rather largish problem here. Unless, of course, you
*like* the current economic climate.

This is not intended as a rant or a flame. Those who feel otherwise, can
complain directly to me.

R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
tel: +1 925 373 3954
cel: +1 925 352 3615
fax: +1 925 373 9781