Jeroen Massar wrote:
What if you want to do VoIP from _multiple_
computers or even real VoIP phones.
Michel Py wrote:
This has never been an issue in the enterprise.
Indeed not if they are keeping the traffic local or using
a proxy. Then you don't have to circumvent NAT anyhow.
Jeroen, this is the usual way. What I am trying to tell you is that you keep
arguing about problems that don't exist.
Back to the home/SIP issue: Have you seen the latest Linksys with voice? It's a
regular Linksys "router" with the guts of a Sipura SPA-2000 ATA grafted to it.
I have not seen the code for it, but it seems logical that the SIP part would
not even have to cross NAT, as it is in the same box that does NAT and
therefore has a straight shot at the outside IP address. What was your problem
again?
[Game Server]
And please don't say you have to do manual
port forwarding on the NAT box.
You don't have to. There are several NAT traversal mechanisms that don't
require manual port forwarding nor uPNP. Skype and Morpheus being examples:
zero configuration, and you can place _and_ receive calls (or download _and_
share files). With Skype you can have multiple phone clients behind the NAT
that can each receive calls specific to them and even call each other.
And please don't say you have to do manual
port forwarding on the NAT box.
And let me add this: I use port forwarding preferably to uPNP. I like being the
one in charge of what's happening on my network. But this is me; for Joe
Six-Pack uPNP or Skype-type mechanisms are acceptable.
End to end is not possible
Users don't give a rip; they don't even know what it is.
+-------------+ +-------+ .--,--,--. +-------+ +-------------+
| Game Server |--| NAT_A |--{ Internet }--| NAT_B |--| Game Client |
+-------------+ +-------+ `-,---,--' +-------+ +-------------+
Or are you depending on a public server on the internet?
Then what? You're depending on it anyway as most games will check the serial
number to see if it's not pirated. Adding the NAT traversal mechanism to it,
who cares? Again, don't say "it does not work" because it actually does. You
might not like the way it is done, your problem.
I'm not defending NAT, but the course of action that says people
will have to use IPv6 because NAT is not working is flawed.
Quoting yourself from above:
This where NAT sucks: game developers have to
write NAT-compatible code.
I rest my case ;)
That's where you are missing the point: I'm a user; I don't care if the job of
game developers is harder. Economics 101: I will buy the games that work on my
system which includes NAT like everyone else. I vote with my wallet, write
games that cross NAT and get my money or don't and die. Though luck, but that's
the way it is.
Don't confuse "working" and "sucks". The user has no idea whatsoever what it
takes to cross NAT, does not care, and does not care either if you and/or the
IETF consider the practice impure or heretic.
- What would it buy the cybercafé owner to have IPv6?
Nothing. First, if I needed IPv6 while traveling I would
not rely on availability so I have my own. Second, his
tunneling might be worse than my own (the cybercafé does
not run BGP; I do).
You run BGP where? On your laptop, tunneling IPv4/IPv6
over the cafe's IPv4/IPv6 connectivity? This does not
make sense.
I run BGP in California with multiple peers. In many situations, I would be
better off tunneling IPv6 from Mexico to California then let the California
router decide which one of the peers is the best, opposed to relying on the
IPv6 provided by the cybercafé if it's a Freenet6 client that hauls the traffic
back to Montreal.
Not trying to point any fingers as I do not know the specifics, possibly I
could even be better off tunneling IPv6 from DC/IETF back to California instead
of relying on the IPv6 provided there which was quite scenic routing.
Would the cybercafé owner be able to charge me $2 for 30
minutes instead of $2 per hour? No. Would I choose his
cybercafé instead of the one next door if the sign said
"IPv6"? No.
The question is more: would you pay $2 for 30 minutes of
non-NATted connectivity against $2 for 60 minutes of
NATted and crippled connectivity ?
NO! and the reason is it's not crippled: it would _not_ work smoother; it would
_not_ work faster and I would have _no_ extra features. All I care is that I
get a DHCP address with the default gateway a DNS server configured right. In
this and many other situations being behind NAT or not does not change
_anything_ in terms of usability.
Easy choice for me, I rather pay a bit more for real connectivity,
Geek syndrome. Lots of people on this list have a bad case of it (starting with
me). For a long time, I though that the smallest acceptable home router needed
redundant CPU and redundant power. My wife eventually got tired of the space,
noise, heat and electric bill associated with the c7507; I just downgraded from
this 12U monster to a 3U c7204 with single power and NPE-150. Guess what: it's
not a "real" router (who would run a network on a non-redundant box, heaven
forbid) and still it runs my home network just fine.
Geeks don't make the market. Joe User does, and he doesn't even know what
"real" is.
and what is $2 on your daily spending when
you are on holiday?
You are missing the point here too. These cybercafés are not there to entertain
tourists; lots of Mexicans get their Internet access in a cybercafé. To you and
me, $2 is nothing. To lots of other people, it is a lot. Mexicans that go in a
cybercafé to read their email don't care if they get "real" connectivity.
Michel.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf