once again: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

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.

2

[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

3

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.

4

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