Inline.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Brez Borland
> Sent: woensdag 9 december 2009 0:43
> To: Dale Worley
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] REGISTER request, connection
> termination
>
> 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.
Could you please elaborate on the many uses of NAT?
Apart from the prevention of IPv4 address space exhaustion, all I could find
was a perceived security benefit that can just as well be handled by a
firewall.
Meanwhile, I'm stuck with the need for purchasing extra -expensive- hardware
in the form of session border controllers that wouldn't be needed with
IPv6...
Not wanting to start another flamewar or anything, but how do I explain this
to management?
Regards,
Tom Uijldert
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
