[arin-ppml] inevitability of NAT?
Gary T. Giesen
giesen at snickers.org
Wed Feb 9 18:21:01 EST 2011
The only thing that speaks to how many billions of dollars have been
spent developing products that work around the problems introduced by
NAT. There are a great number of products and protocols that either
behaviour poorly behind NAT or have had to have some ugly hacks to
make them work. We shouldn't simply accept NAT because of inertia from
its use in IPv4. ISPs should take a leadership position in actively
discouraging its use, as we all win in the end.
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/2011 5:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> End users want to be able to do their hosted games on their Playstation.
>> End users want to be able to get to their home networks through services
>> like Go2mypc or whatever it's called (I don't need a service, I don't use
>> NAT, so, I don't pay a lot of attention to the services available).
> I can't name a mass market service today that doesn't work through NAT and
> the ones you point out are certainly do.
> Playstation Network works, by design, flawlessly through NAT and is _not_ a
> peer to peer application. All traffic goes to the PSN servers and then to
> clients. Go2MyPC is designed for NAT and in fact one could argue that it
> wouldn't exist if NAT weren't wide spread.
>> End users want stuff that works today to work tomorrow.
>> All of those things represent a strong interest in avoiding LSN at the
>> carrier level.
> Scott Helms
> Vice President of Technology
> ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
> (678) 507-5000
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML