[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Roger Marquis]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Lee Dilkie wrote:
>> Field testing would also show that consumers don't want to register their
>> internal IPs, don't want end-to-end transparency, and don't want to give a
>> free pass to badly designed protocols (like SIP) that they require deep
>> packet inspection to work well with NAT.
> 
> I feel like I've been patted on the head. Thanks old timer!

I'll interpret that as a confirmation that they don't tech the value of
field testing, much less market analysis, in network engineering classes.

> My own product supports both ipv4 and ipv6 VoIP and I really like being
> able to get two ipv6 endpoints to stream media directly to each other while
> ipv4 ones must make use of my SBC. It makes engineering (network load) a
> whole lot easier (not to mention a lot cheaper).

Are you assuming consumers will simply open up their firewalls and let
(your) protocols through without inspection, were NAT out of the way?  I
just don't see end users giving SRTP or any other protocol a free pass,
regardless of firewall gear, regardless of NAT.  Also doubt that the
alternative packet inspecting and/or other ACLs would be simpler than
NAT.

You might float your idea for making network engineering easier (by
killing NAT) over on the firewall-wizards mailing list.

Roger Marquis