[rrg] and while we're at it, here's a view from the ground...

[David Meyer]

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 05:34:26PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:25 PM, David Meyer <dmm at 1-4-5.net> wrote:
> >> Slide 15:
> >> End-to-end = peer to peer. You'll be better understood with the more
> >> widely used term.
> >
> >        I meant end-to-end.
> 
> David,
> 
> If you asked an audience of system administrators whether Vonage and
> Skype would be impacted by fracturing the end-to-end principle with
> carrier grade NAT, I'm not sure how many would correctly identify that
> Skype would be impacted but Vonage would not. I think most would
> incorrectly believe that all VoIP systems would be hurt, not just the
> ones structured in a peer to peer design.
> 
> I presume you know your audience better than I do. I would merely
> suggest that an imprecise term your audience understands is often a
> better choice than a precise one whose implications they don't really
> get.

	Fair enough.

> >  Well, those building them and those planning to deploy them.
> 
> URL please?

	Don't have one (yet).

> Seriously, what passes for cost analysis in this industry is shameful.
> Mostly it's "experts" sitting in a circle making SWAGs. If this time
> is an exception, I'd like to read the paper.

	What I know is public is the following:

	(i).	A+P

		http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/a+p.pdf

	(ii).	All of the IETF stuff

		softwire, behave and coexist work
		http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nishitani-cgn-00.txt
		...

	I'm sure you'll see stuff from vendors and SPs but my
	sense is that its just too early at the moment.

	Dave


	
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : <http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/rrg/attachments/20081030/2cc3ac14/attachment.sig>