[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 3gpp transition solutions, revision -02

To: "BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE" <luc.beloeil@rd.francetelecom.com>
Subject: Re: 3gpp transition solutions, revision -02
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:21:25 -0500
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian@hursley.ibm.com>, "Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se>, v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Delivery-date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 09:24:51 -0800
Envelope-to: v6ops-data@psg.com
In-reply-to: (Your message of "Thu, 07 Nov 2002 17:44:14 +0100.") <C691E039D3895C44AB8DFD006B950FB4A5B957@lanmhs50.rd.francetelecom.fr>
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org

> For SIP-based services an application proxy is not sufficient.

and NAT-PT is sufficient?  from my limited knowledge of SIP I find this 
surprising.

however I don't see a huge problem with using NAT-PT only for a specific
set of well-defined services on networks with known characteristics; 
presumably it can be adapted as needed to accomodate those services.  

the imposition of NAT-PT on other services is of course a separate question.

References:
- RE: 3gpp transition solutions, revision -02
  - From: "BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE" <luc.beloeil@rd.francetelecom.com>

Prev by Date: RE: 3gpp transition solutions, revision -02
Next by Date: Re: (ngtrans) NUD for ISATAP Routers
Previous by thread: RE: 3gpp transition solutions, revision -02
Next by thread: RE: 3gpp transition solutions, revision -02
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread