nanog mailing list archives
Re: OT: RE: IPv6 NAT
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 12:57:56 -0800
for a STUN server, which I still can't find a copy of. Fortunately it's unnecessary. It works, as long as I don't try to contact another phone behind another NAT.
That is the very essence of why I think NAT in the long run is a bad idea... What good is a phone that can't contact another phone. One of the mainadvantages to VOIP is that you can achieve some level of provider independence and still have phone service. Sure, you need some level of ISP, but, you can
have more than one of those and SIP still works when one is down. If you are dependent on a particular company running a proxy, then, if they hose their stuff, you're out of luck. Owen -- If it wasn't signed, it probably didn't come from me.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 NAT, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Owen DeLong (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Joe Abley (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Paul Timmins (Nov 01)
- RE: IPv6 NAT Michel Py (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 NAT David Lesher (Nov 01)
- RE: IPv6 NAT james (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Suresh Ramasubramanian (Nov 01)
- Re: IPv6 NAT Bill Owens (Nov 01)
- Wiltel Connectivity Issues Brian Boles (Nov 02)
- OT: RE: IPv6 NAT Paul Timmins (Nov 01)
- Re: OT: RE: IPv6 NAT Owen DeLong (Nov 01)