[arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)

Wed Oct 29 17:15:37 UTC 2003

Right... Forgot about the SNMP breakage.  SIP doesn't depend on knowing
which host it's talking to from the source address, but, it does depend
on being able to assign RTP session parameters based on IP addresses
contained within the SIP payload.  Thus, when the SIP payload goes through
a NAT box and the payload is not modified accordingly, the RTP session
rarely works out right.

Owen

--On Wednesday, October 29, 2003 11:03 AM +0000 Simon Lockhart 
<simon.lockhart at bbc.co.uk> wrote:

>
> No.
>
> Anything that relies on knowing which host it is talking to by looking at
> the source address of packets breaks.
>
> Plenty of UDP based apps work over NAT.
>
> Simon
>
> On Wed Oct 29, 2003 at 10:57:35AM -0000, Dave Howe wrote:
>>
>> Avleen Vig wrote:
>> > If "more IP addresses" is the only motivation for using IPv6, it's
>> > really not enough. For environments where direct access to the
>> > internet isn't required, NAT serves perfectly well.
>> IPSec, SIP/VoIP or almost anything that relies on UDP borks on NAT,
>> doesn't it?
>
> --
> Simon Lockhart          |   Tel: +44 (0)1628 407720 (x37720) | Si fractum
> Technology Manager      |   Fax: +44 (0)1628 407701 (x37701) | non sit,
> noli  BBC Internet Operations | Email: Simon.Lockhart at bbc.co.uk    | id
> reficere BBC Technology, Maiden House, Vanwall Road, Maidenhead. SL6 4UB.
> UK
>

-- 
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/20031029/d11617c5/attachment.sig>