On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 05:34:26PM -0400, William Herrin wrote: > 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.
Fair enough.
> > Well, those building them and those planning to deploy them.
>
> URL please?
Don't have one (yet).
> 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.
What I know is public is the following:
(i). A+P
http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/a+p.pdf
(ii). All of the IETF stuff
softwire, behave and coexist work
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nishitani-cgn-00.txt
...
I'm sure you'll see stuff from vendors and SPs but my
sense is that its just too early at the moment.
Dave
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
