<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font>Are you assuming consumers will simply open up their firewalls and let<br>(your) protocols through without inspection, were NAT out of the way? I<br>just don't see end users giving SRTP or any other protocol a free pass,<br>regardless of firewall gear, regardless of NAT. Also doubt that the<br>alternative packet inspecting and/or other ACLs would be simpler than<br>NAT.<br><br></div></blockquote>I'm certainly making no such assumption, but, yes, the other packet inspecting</div><div>things are vastly superior to NAT in at least the following ways:</div><div><br></div><div>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Deterministic, predictable troubleshooting</div><div>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>They don't require heroic measures in the software to work around</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>the damage introduced by your stateful inspection. Stateful</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>inspection only breaks what it intends to break. NAT breaks all</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>kinds of things whether the administrator wants to allow them</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>or not.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>