Subject: Re: [midcom] SNMP - using as a transport layer?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:58:34 -0500

On 06/21/2002, at 12:01:00 P.M., Keith Moore wrote, in part:

>   MIDCOM isn't going to solve any problems for home networks anyway.

Respectfully, I must disagree. Prototype RSIP implementations in PCs,
SIP phones, and small routers validate this.

>   The best that can be hoped for is for MIDCOM to solve problems for
>   the few server apps that can afford to add MIDCOM support.

This I partially agree with. RSIP implementations in gateways, signalling
controllers, and large routers validate this. But when implemented in host
*platforms* with tunnels, no host *applications* need to be changed,
making support for all (most?) applications quite manageable.

>   The only way to solve the problem in general is to get rid of NATs.
>   It's important to not lose sight of this.

To solve the problem in general, ya, the best thing would be to get rid
of NATs. Is that likely to happen? I would have to say, "Not any time
soon.". Unfortunate, but true. :-(

"Enhancing" the support of NATs may (will?) very well prolong their
lifetime. Not enhancing the support of NATs will slow the adoption of
applications (such as VoIP) in configurations (such as private IP realms
in ISP, small business, and home networks) that need it.

And in enterprise networks, firewalls are as much a problem as NATs.

Ultimately, the marketplace will decide. I wouldn't bet against the
inertia of the installed base.

Jim

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:46:10 -0400

> SIP phones, and small routers validate this.

RSIP is not a general solution, and it's very cumbersome to use.
Neither apps nor hosts can be expected to know when to use the RSIP
address and when to use the local realm address, especially when
referring one address to another host which might or might not be
in a different realm.  RSIP cannot solve this problem, and neither
can MIDCOM.

> making support for all (most?) applications quite manageable.

false.  see above.

> soon.". Unfortunate, but true. :-(

to some degree this depends on what you mean by "soon".  

actually I don't think we're likely to entirely get rid of NATs 
anytime soon either, but I do think we could fairly easily provide
means for apps that have trouble with NATs to use IPv6 while 
still allowing apps that work with NATs to use them.  it's a 
lot easier to accomplish this than to get those apps to work sanely
with either RSIP or MIDCOM, and it's also a more general solution.

so while the NATs might still exist, they wouldn't be relevant to
apps that couldn't deal with them.

Keith