Subject: Re: IPv6 adoption behavior

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:30:41 +0100

At 10:15 AM 10/21/2003 -0400, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>>You are wrong :) They tasted the filth of being behind NAT's
>>and not being able to do a number of things including VoIP.
>
>I am no NAT apologist but I do not think this is entirely true. Skype runs
>amazingly well behind NATs. As long as NAT is an option people will find
>ways to twist applications to work with it. It is the application
>developer who feels the pain. Not the end user.

But if I want a VoIP communication from me (behind a NAT) to some user 
behind a NAT, not using a 3rd party "location" server, how does v4 deliver, 
without the receiving user having the pain of port forwarding configuration 
on their NAT?

How do I do the same in v4 where I want end-to-end encryption on the 
application?

Tim

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Christian Strauf (JOIN)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:43:00 +0200

> without the receiving user having the pain of port forwarding configuration 

Good point. I experienced that end-users in the GnomeMeeting (H.323
client) community that never had anything to do with v6 suddenly started
asking questions about how to get IPv6 connectivity because they heard
that even as a normal end user you can get a /64 from tunnel brokers or
your ISP (in some cases) which solves the end-to-end connectivity
problem that exists with IPv4+NAT because you can get a global v6
address. IPv4+NAT problems are the most common problems in this
community. 80% of all problems that people have with GnomeMeeting can be
traced back to a NAT. What I'm trying to say is that there are
applications that can raise a demand for IPv6 due to easier to achieve
end-to-end connectivity. And Skype is not a good example for end-to-end
communication "over NAT" because it wouldn't work without non-NAT-ed
nodes.

> How do I do the same in v4 where I want end-to-end encryption on the 
Another good example for a field where end-users will eventually realise
the use of IPv6 w/o NAT vs. IPv4 w/ NAT.

The point is: there are a good number of everyday applications where
end-users are painfully reminded that they live behind a NAT. And those
users would definitely appreciate getting rid of IPv4+NAT if they can
achieve what they want with IPv6. In this case, the adoption of IPv6 is
simply a logical consequence.

Christian

-- 
JOIN - IP Version 6 in the WiN  Christian Strauf
A DFN project                   Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
http://www.join.uni-muenster.de Zentrum für Informationsverarbeitung
Team: [email-masked]      Röntgenstrasse 9-13
Priv: [email-masked]    D-48149 Münster / Germany
GPG-/PGP-Key-ID: 1DFAAA9A       Fon: +49 251 83 31639, Fax: +49 251 83 31653

---

From: "Christian Strauf (JOIN)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:50:50 +0200

Sorry for posting this comment, I saw the IPv6 Chairs' mail too late.

Christian