On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:25 PM, David Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Slide 15: >> End-to-end = peer to peer. You'll be better understood with the more >> widely used term. > > I meant end-to-end.
David, If you asked an audience of system administrators whether Vonage and Skype would be impacted by fracturing the end-to-end principle with carrier grade NAT, I'm not sure how many would correctly identify that Skype would be impacted but Vonage would not. I think most would incorrectly believe that all VoIP systems would be hurt, not just the ones structured in a peer to peer design. I presume you know your audience better than I do. I would merely suggest that an imprecise term your audience understands is often a better choice than a precise one whose implications they don't really get. >> Slides 15 and 17: >> I suspect you have overstated the dollar and failure cost impacts of >> carrier grade NAT. Has anyone attempted a systemic cost analysis? > > Well, those building them and those planning to deploy them. URL please? Seriously, what passes for cost analysis in this industry is shameful. Mostly it's "experts" sitting in a circle making SWAGs. If this time is an exception, I'd like to read the paper. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
