Subject: Re: [nat66] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-iab-ipv6-nat-00.txt

From: Roger Marquis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:16:42 -0700 (PDT)

> I've a feeling that NAT66 complicates the bootstrap process for
> P2PSIP overlays, but I'm not sure how.  I don't think I see how
> P2PSIP bootstrap servers can be deployed behind NAT66 without
> tightly coupled coordination with the NAT, and I wonder about Fred's
> ideas about hairpin denial in that case...

If ever there were a good time to deprecate a protocol it'd be now for SIP
(and any other application that embeds its IP in the payload with no
accomodations for address translation).  Otherwise you're really just
patching one bad design on another.

IAX2 would be a natural replacement in the IPv6 world, if the IETF would
stop sitting on it.

IMO,
Roger Marquis

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:54:42 -0700

>> ideas about hairpin denial in that case...

I should remind the group that I was confused here when I was talking  
about the bootstrap process in P2PSIP.  My comments were aimed at the  
enrollment process, not the bootstrap process for the overlay.  The  
SIP protocol is not involved in P2PSIP enrollment.

--
james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering