Hi Tom, I might have exaggerated this. But yes NAT provides security by explicitly isolating the network behind it. I guess the time when I will be able to get, say a hundred IP addresses for personal use are some good years away still. For SIP, I do believe that even today we still have to account for NAT when making an attempt to come out with the application level protocol. Not to say about the time when SIP was introduced.
NAT provides privacy as well. I don't want to see the situation where other people know how many hosts I maintain. Here for example I mean governmental organizations. To put it this way, the government would hate NAT. Because it weakens their control of the net. It is easier when the infrastructure is such that they know the number of IP's you maintain. To allow NAT to spread is to weaken the control over the internet itself. Implementing NAT makes you aware of your resources, taking NAT away enables other parties to be aware of them. Meantime I do believe that businesses suffer from unavailability of IP addresses. Hopefully we come to IPv6 sometime soon. Regards, Brez On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Tom Uijldert <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
