RE: Towards closure on NAT traversal.

["Dilkie, Lee" <Lee_Dilkie@mitel.com>]

I think some people are also making bizarre assumptions that NAT will go away when IPv6 gets deployed.

A lot of NAT is deployed today for economic reasons, the cost of getting multiple IP addresses from an ISP is way, way more than the cost of getting just one address. So people/small companies use NAT to multiplex and lower costs. Unless the tariffs are changed, I see no reason to assume that NAT will go away.

-lee

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 4:08 PM
> To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> Subject: RE: Towards closure on NAT traversal.
> 
> 
> 
> > > The people who want IPSEC are often different from the people
> > > performing NAT attacks on them.
> > 
> > I don't understand your point. For IPsec to work, both 
> parties have to
> > be willing and interested. If one of those parties puts up 
> a NAT, they
> > obvoiusly aren't interested.
> 
> You make the bizare assumption that people have control over
> their environments.
> 
> I have much more control over the protocols I use than the
> network I have access to.
> 
> 	Phill
> 
>