Subject: RE: arguments against NAT?

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:15:07 -0800

Armando,

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> I'm not arguing about that, it is delaying things indeed.
>> However I wonder which kind of instant messaging you are
>> referring to, as all the ones I've seen work fine through NAT.

> Armando L. Caro Jr.
> Yahoo and AOL (I have never used MSN). Sure, you can do
> normal chatting, but once you extend into the other
> features such as file transfer, voice, and webcam...
> things break.

In many enterprise environments, this would be a feature not a bug.
There are some webcams that are definitely inappropriate in a business
setup; given the lack of good enterprise content filtering solutions for
IM, if NAT does break IM webcams I don't have a problem with it. As of
file transfer, it does not bother me either as like a lot of other
network administrators I have a problem with users sharing their office
computer files with anyone unknown on the net. For voice there's always
that thing called the telephone that has the advantage to work all the
time with anybody and can be logged.

Michel.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:51:50 -0500

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:15:07 PST, Michel Py said:

> IM, if NAT does break IM webcams I don't have a problem with it.

That's backwards.  "That kind" of webcam is often *not* behind a NAT at the
source end, so can be contacted.

What breaks is that *your* user can't have a videoconferencing solution that
your business partners can contact.

If your user is running "that kind" of webcam from their office, you have
bigger management issues than a NAT. :)

>                                     For voice there's always

Ever notice that this works a *lot* better when each user has their own phone
number, rather than one number that rings at the receptionist's desk and may or
may not get transferred to the actual person?

There's a lesson there.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:44:44 -0500

> As of
> computer files with anyone unknown on the net.

> that thing called the telephone that has the advantage to work all the

How nice for you to be able to determine what everyone else should be able
to run on their networks.

---

From: "Armando L. Caro Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:39:18 -0500 (EST)

> In many enterprise environments, this would be a feature not a bug.

Maybe, but that's not the point. Not everyone who is forced to be behind a
NAT is in an enterprise environment. Plus, if enterprise environments want
to implement this "feature", firewalls work fine.

> setup;

Says who? Each business is different.

> given the lack of good enterprise content filtering solutions for

You don't have a problem with it, but others do. Plus, why are firewalls
not sufficient for blocking IM?

> As of file transfer, it does not bother me either as like a lot of
> other network administrators I have a problem with users sharing their
> office computer files with anyone unknown on the net.

Again, YOU are ok with file transfer breaking... not everyone.

> For voice there's always that thing called the telephone that has the
> advantage to work all the time with anybody and can be logged.

Oh, your right... so all the time that IM vendors invested in implementing
voice chat was truly a waste, because there is absolutely NO demand for
it. And all those users that currently are using voice chat as we
speak/type have simply missed the fact that they could pick up the phone
to pay more for their conversation.

(As I finish this reply, I realize it was a waste of my time... but now
that it's written, I'll send it anyway.)

~armando

0--                                              --0
| Armando L. Caro Jr.  |  Protocol Engineering Lab |
| www.armandocaro.net  |    University of Delaware |
0--                                              --0

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:14:11 +0100

Keith Moore wrote:
|>In many enterprise environments, this would be a feature not a bug.
|>There are some webcams that are definitely inappropriate in a business
|>setup; given the lack of good enterprise content filtering solutions for
|>IM, if NAT does break IM webcams I don't have a problem with it.
|
|
|>As of
|>file transfer, it does not bother me either as like a lot of other
|>network administrators I have a problem with users sharing their office
|>computer files with anyone unknown on the net.
|
|
|>For voice there's always
|>that thing called the telephone that has the advantage to work all the
|
|
| How nice for you to be able to determine what everyone else should be able
| to run on their networks.
|

Yeah. The level of clueloss boggles the mind.

	MVH leifj

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:02:24 +1100

Michel Py wrote:
	[..]
> computer files with anyone unknown on the net.

I trust you frisk all employees for CD-R/RWs, floppies and USB sticks
on their way home each evening too....

cheers,
gja