On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Ole Jacobsen <ole(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
If by "IPSec" you mean what the marketing folks call VPN, then so far it
has worked just fine.
Muticast, VOIP and the rest of stuff you mention probably does NOT work,
but my point was that this is NOT what most business travellers want.
A retorical question. How do business travellers know that they don't
want them, if they've never seen them demonstrated, because NAT limited the
availablility of them to the point where their availability couldn't be relied
upon.
Not only may the next "killer app" not be the next "killer app" because it
doesn't work with NAT, the next "killer app" may have already been invented a
year ago, but wasn't able to be deployed because of the prevalance of NAT. Not
only don't we know, we also don't know what we may be missing.
This is the problem with NAT - it appears to be a nice easy solution, until
you realise that the devil is in the details.
Keith Moore has put together a good list of the things NAT breaks at
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/what-nats-break.html
a related document, also by Keith, which also addresses some issues influenced
by NAT is "Dubious Assumptions about IPv6"
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/ipv6/dubious-assumptions.html
Regards,
Mark.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf