IPv6 NAT
Owen DeLong
owen at delong.com
Sat Nov 1 18:42:37 UTC 2003
I think Paul Timmins covered it rather well.
Owen
--On Saturday, November 1, 2003 11:56 AM -0600 Shawn Morris
<shawn at smorris.com> wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> That probably means they are not using SIP, but, instead are using
>> either H.323 or some other proprietary ugliness. That's unfortunate.
>>
>> SIP has to include the IP address of the RTP destination in it's payload.
>> As such, you can't use SIP cleanly across NAT unless the NAT box knows
>> to proxy the SIP and edit the payload (very messy).
>
> Well, VOIP is not my area of expertise, but Vonage is using SIP and we
> have some of our engineers who are using our internal VOIP/SIP network
> behind a NAT device.
>
>>
>> In any case, Vonage aside, lots of things that the average user will
>> eventually consider useful are broken by NAT and NAT is an unnecessary
>> ugliness in most places where it is used.
>>
>> It should _NOT_ be encouraged.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>> --On Saturday, November 1, 2003 11:33 AM -0600 Shawn Morris
>> <shawn at smorris.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you are telling me that Joe User will never use VOIP, then you are
>>>> somking from a different internet hooka than the folks at Vonage. I
>>>> don't know which of you is right, but, I know Vonage has enough
>>>> customers to say that at least some number of Joe User's are using SIP
>>>> and RTP which are among the protocols broken by NAT. Next?
>>>
>>>
>>> Vonage's SIP implementation is not broken by NAT and in fact Vonage
>>> recommends that you purchase a SOHO router that does NAT.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Owen
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
If it wasn't signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20031101/3972a666/attachment.sig>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list