[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Roger Marquis]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> I'm certainly making no such assumption, but, yes, the other packet inspecting
> things are vastly superior to NAT in at least the following ways:
>
> 1.	Deterministic, predictable troubleshooting
> 2.	They don't require heroic measures in the software to work around
> 	the damage introduced by your stateful inspection. Stateful
> 	inspection only breaks what it intends to break. NAT breaks all
> 	kinds of things whether the administrator wants to allow them
> 	or not.

Your assertions are vague and general Owen, and not in agreement with my
experience.  Exactly what step of RTP/SRTP stateful inspection is easier
without NAT?

Roger Marquis