once again: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user
|> From: Adam McKenna [mailto:adam-nanog@flounder.net] |> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 4:49 PM |> I realized that the NAT argument is just a smokescreen which |> enables Meyer to |> continue his prefix filtering flamewar. The sooner you all |> stop paying |> attention to him, the better off this list will be. Aside from the fact that you seem to have some personal grudge. You are wrong. For one thing, this was, until now, far from flamewar. What you have done, however, is akin to invoking "Nazi". You may not care that NAT issues are restricting the distribution of ICANN's deliberations, but many other do. Folks here may not like H.323 but it is, unfortunately, the best tool we have. Those that can't afford to have static IP addresses will not be able to participate fully. FYI, the Montevideo sessions are going on now. Travel expenses are onerous and telephony expenses are almost as bad. VOIP is the only means that we can do global participation, at reasonable expense and within ICANN budget (cheap) whilst not bankrupting the participants. Client applications are almost universally available, at little to zero cost. Server-side code is widely available as open-source. The only thing mucked up is the stuff in the middle. Sir, that involves network operations, by ANY stretch of the imagination, and bringing that point up is not flamewar. If you can come up with something better then do so. BTW, I think it's a rotten shame that the major ISPs aren't doing something to help with this. I'm not talking about donations to ICANN either. I'm talking about resources, connectivity, and other sorely needed assistance. There should be no reason that the Berkman Center is the only resource provider. Except for randy, mike, patrick, and very few others, you guys have your very own constituency fercrisakes and y'all aren't doing squat! "I gave at the office" ain't cuttin' the mustard. No one behind a NAT boundary can participate in the online meetings (the info of which was sent in my original message, forwarded from the DNSO-GA). That we took a few detours, in these discussions, is the nature of unmoderated group discussions. Certain operational policies are hampering the business development of the internet. They break the Internet. 1) UDRP and uncertainty over DN ownership (being addressed in ICANN/DNSO). 2) Anti-mailer relay activities eliminate certain business models. 3) Instability and unreliability of access makes business nervous (NorthPoint, ATT-CA?) 3a) NAT breaks end2end connectivity with end-users (see H.323 for examples). 3b) lack of true multi-homing capability. 3c) routing issues 3d) etc. If I may don my marketing hat for a mo; from what I'm seeing, VOIP conferencing may be the next killer-app of the Internet and may be the ONLY thing that'll let anyone else play evenly with the ILECs. Like firearms, it levels the playing field, for the little guys. It also does in the IXCs, unless they go there first. So, unless you can come up with something better than H.323, I suggest that we find means to support it rather than breaking it further. NAT is a rather largish problem here. Unless, of course, you *like* the current economic climate. This is not intended as a rant or a flame. Those who feel otherwise, can complain directly to me. -- R O E L A N D M J M E Y E R Managing Director Morgan Hill Software Company tel: +1 925 373 3954 cel: +1 925 352 3615 fax: +1 925 373 9781 http://www.mhsc.com
on 9/9/01 3:03 AM, Roeland Meyer at rmeyer@mhsc.com wrote: [snip about nazis]
You may not care that NAT issues are restricting the distribution of ICANN's deliberations, but many other do. Folks here may not like H.323 but it is, unfortunately, the best tool we have. Those that can't afford to have static IP addresses will not be able to participate fully. FYI, the Montevideo
Um, I think we got doubly off-topic. Nobody is talking about forcing NAT on all their customers. If you want to piddle with h.323, then use a real address without NAT. Problem solved. This is not a one-solution-fits-all bag. Honestly, I couldn't care less about h.323. I've never used it, I don't want to use it, and I'm sick of hearing about it. If a customer requests a larger block of real addresses cause he wants to share files with whatever new p2p application, or chat with his warez buddies via NetMeeting, I don't care. He can have his address, he's the one that has to pay for them. Those that can't afford another 3 IP addresses from their ISP have bigger problems than NAT breaking their precious video-conferencing. You want h.323, then don't do NAT. This is very simple, and this thread has gone on long enough.
sessions are going on now. Travel expenses are onerous and telephony expenses are almost as bad. VOIP is the only means that we can do global participation, at reasonable expense and within ICANN budget (cheap) whilst not bankrupting the participants. Client applications are almost universally available, at little to zero cost. Server-side code is widely available as open-source. The only thing mucked up is the stuff in the middle. Sir, that involves network operations, by ANY stretch of the imagination, and bringing that point up is not flamewar.
Whatever happened to good old fashioned email lists or usenet? Oh yeah, they're all full of spam now, because of businesses trying to exploit the pervasiveness of the internet. How ironic is that? Interesting read on ICANN: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/21553.html
If you can come up with something better then do so. BTW, I think it's a rotten shame that the major ISPs aren't doing something to help with this.
To help with what? Making your video conferencing work? To eliminate NAT? How about donating some time and effort into ipv6? NAT is a workaround; it's time to fix the real problem and stop complaining about the workaround. [snip]
No one behind a NAT boundary can participate in the online meetings (the info of which was sent in my original message, forwarded from the DNSO-GA). That we took a few detours, in these discussions, is the nature of unmoderated group discussions.
Certain operational policies are hampering the business development of the internet. They break the Internet.
"AOL tech support, can I help you?" "Yeah, the internet is broken." I for one would like to see the internet regress back into the good-old-days of irc networks that worked, usenet that wasn't full of spam, and people that weren't just trying to make a buck using publicly donated connectivity. That's just a personal opinion, of course.
1) UDRP and uncertainty over DN ownership (being addressed in ICANN/DNSO). 2) Anti-mailer relay activities eliminate certain business models. 3) Instability and unreliability of access makes business nervous (NorthPoint, ATT-CA?) 3a) NAT breaks end2end connectivity with end-users (see H.323 for examples). 3b) lack of true multi-homing capability. 3c) routing issues 3d) etc.
If I may don my marketing hat for a mo; from what I'm seeing, VOIP conferencing may be the next killer-app of the Internet and may be the ONLY thing that'll let anyone else play evenly with the ILECs. Like firearms, it levels the playing field, for the little guys. It also does in the IXCs, unless they go there first. So, unless you can come up with something better than H.323, I suggest that we find means to support it rather than breaking it further. NAT is a rather largish problem here. Unless, of course, you *like* the current economic climate.
See above ipv6 comment about fixing the real problem. --Doug
Also sprach Doug Clements
Um, I think we got doubly off-topic. Nobody is talking about forcing NAT on all their customers.
Talk to Cincinnati Bell/Zoomtown. They are almost, but not quite, forcing NAT on, not only their customers, but the customers of any ISP that uses Zoomtown to provide DSL in the Cincinnati area.
this thread has gone on long enough.
I will heartily agree with this statement, though, for sure. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456
On Sun, 9 Sep 2001, Doug Clements wrote:
You want h.323, then don't do NAT. This is very simple, and this thread has gone on long enough.
Or get an H.323 gateway which combines NAT functions and H.323 "switchboard" (i.e. CTI, conference control, etc). My previous employer (Genesys, now part of Alcatel) makes one. --vadim
participants (4)
-
Doug Clements -
Jeff Mcadams -
Roeland Meyer -
Vadim Antonov