|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: once again: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user
on 9/9/01 3:03 AM, Roeland Meyer at [email protected] wrote: [snip about nazis] > 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 Um, I think we got doubly off-topic. Nobody is talking about forcing NAT on all their customers. If you want to piddle with h.323, then use a real address without NAT. Problem solved. This is not a one-solution-fits-all bag. Honestly, I couldn't care less about h.323. I've never used it, I don't want to use it, and I'm sick of hearing about it. If a customer requests a larger block of real addresses cause he wants to share files with whatever new p2p application, or chat with his warez buddies via NetMeeting, I don't care. He can have his address, he's the one that has to pay for them. Those that can't afford another 3 IP addresses from their ISP have bigger problems than NAT breaking their precious video-conferencing. You want h.323, then don't do NAT. This is very simple, and this thread has gone on long enough. > 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. Whatever happened to good old fashioned email lists or usenet? Oh yeah, they're all full of spam now, because of businesses trying to exploit the pervasiveness of the internet. How ironic is that? Interesting read on ICANN: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/21553.html > 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. To help with what? Making your video conferencing work? To eliminate NAT? How about donating some time and effort into ipv6? NAT is a workaround; it's time to fix the real problem and stop complaining about the workaround. [snip] > 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. "AOL tech support, can I help you?" "Yeah, the internet is broken." I for one would like to see the internet regress back into the good-old-days of irc networks that worked, usenet that wasn't full of spam, and people that weren't just trying to make a buck using publicly donated connectivity. That's just a personal opinion, of course. > 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. See above ipv6 comment about fixing the real problem. --Doug
|