Re: I-D ACTION:draft-bagnulo-v6ops-6man-nat64-pb-statement-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2007-11-23 13:41, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > Ones that are behind an ISP that not only doesn't support IPv6,
> > but also has "security" in place that blocks IPv6 tunnels of
> > all kinds. In this case, a dual stack host has no IPv6 capability.
> >
> > If that's a null set, I agree with you. But is it?
>
> There certainly are hosts behind such firewalls. But then, firewalls don't just block tunnels. They typically do that to implement a policy. And I believe there is a very large overlap between policies that block tunnels and policies that block P2P applications. The subset of hosts that could do P2P but would not be able to to tunnels is probably very small.

It's my understanding that many p2p applications revert to running over
http when they can't find any kind of layer 3 connectivity. In the case
we're discussing, that would mean http over IPv4. If there's a dual
stack http proxy on the path, that would fix it.

However, I'd like to hear from the SIP community on this point.
How will p2p SIP work in a mixed network?

    Brian