Please can you help me understand how it gets in the way.
As I understand these devices would:
- accept (authenticated) commands - perhaps snmp (there's some thought
of using sip proxy commands) format.
- send status/traps (snmp again).
Any NAT would be able to translate both ways - OK it would stumble if
there was end-to-end encryption but a small device may not have
encryption capability. It should be easy to add NAT (one would need a
router, firewall, gateway/gatekeeper anyway).
If the issue is only that of encryption then I accept your point. But
perhaps I'm missing something. I'm looking for reasons why NAT/v4
cannot/will not address the needs of the new devices.
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> 11/26/01 7:17:38 PM >>>
3) new devices that plug into residential networks (mostly new)
What stops the new devices from having v4 with NAT to translate
between the
internet and the house.
nothing stops them, but if you want to access the devices from outside
the
house (and in many cases that's the point of such devices) then NAT
gets
in the way.
Keith