Dale has a point. I was impressed watching talk dedicated to ipv6 where major minds behind ipv6 development seemed to be straight ignorant, or least interested, in the notion of private network implementations such as NAT. their position is that every device should have a public IP. Which in my opinion would be great yes. But NAT is the concept which has many uses as well, and I believe it is not going to go away very soon. some academics are just weird I guess.
Brez On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Dale Worley <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 21:11 +0100, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: >> El Lunes, 7 de Diciembre de 2009, Dale Worley escribió: >> > On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 00:15 +0100, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: >> > > I still wake up every day asking myself how SIP protocol was born >> > > assuming there is no NAT... :( >> > >> > How long have you been involved with the IETF? A lot of IETF people >> > hate NATs like the Pope hates Satan. >> >> Does it mean that RFC 3261 exists prior to NAT? XD > > Not at all. But the fact that RFC 3261 ignores NATs is not accidental > or an oversight. Only after SIP became popular in "real" situations did > people work out how to make it work with NATs. > > Dale > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
