Rinka Singh wrote: > > Please can you help me understand how it gets in the way. > > As I understand these devices would: > - accept (authenticated) commands - perhaps snmp (there's some thought > of using sip proxy commands) format. > - send status/traps (snmp again). > > Any NAT would be able to translate both ways - OK it would stumble if > there was end-to-end encryption but a small device may not have > encryption capability. It should be easy to add NAT (one would need a > router, firewall, gateway/gatekeeper anyway). > > If the issue is only that of encryption then I accept your point. But > perhaps I'm missing something. I'm looking for reasons why NAT/v4 > cannot/will not address the needs of the new devices.
If you have a few hundred devices in your house that need to act as peers (not clients) to devices outside, they need to be addressable. [we could have a digression on my choice of word, but I think it's beside the point.] If they are all hidden behind one IPv4 address, then a sub-addressing system is needed, and I'm not sure what you think it will be, unless you want to use a well-known port number for each device. It will just be *easier* to use IPv6 as the addressing scheme - initially via RFC 3056, I expect. It also solves the e2e encryption problem, as you say. Brian
