Eric Rescorla writes:
Michael Thomas <mat(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> writes:
Eric Rescorla writes:
> What applications that people want to run--and the IT managers would
> want to enable--are actually inhibited by NAT? It seems to me that
> most of the applications inconvenienced by NAT are ones that IT
> managers would want to screen off anyway.
Uh, have you paid no attention to voice? It
qualifies on both counts. We get complaints from
customers each and every day... the ones that are
lucky enough to figure out that NAT is why their
IP phone doesn't work that is.
As I said, these would be screened off by corporate firewalls in most
cases anyway.
That there are also issues with firewalls is
entirely beside the point. And firewall traversal
using a VPN is a trivial and deployed solution to
the firewall traversal problem. And is often a
good one, modulo inflated packet size for RTP
streams which generate small packets.
Thus the point stands: NAT's are right now a
serious problem for the deployment of voice. By
real customers who have real desires for
deployment. Your handwaving here is not borne out
in the reality of our business or anybody else's
who's involved with voice. And frankly your
uninformed dismissive tone here is rather
unbecoming for those of us who've had to actually
deal with this issue for years.
Mike