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

the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

Subject: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:38:33 +0200 (CEST)
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, John R. Levine wrote:

> Skype video chat, all the time, works fine.  Don't remember about file 
> transfer.

Whenever I am behind NAT and talk to someone else who is behind NAT skype 
seems to lower the quality, my guess it's because it now bounces traffic 
via another non-NATed node.

These kind of applications work best if there is at least one non-NATed 
party involved, especially for video etc.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se

Follow-Ups:
- the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
  - From: lear at cisco.com (Eliot Lear)
- the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
  - From: nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org (Mark Smith)

References:
- Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
  - From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
- Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
  - From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
- the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
  - From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine)

Prev by Date: IPv4 Options now Deprecated - Header Length Always 5 (0101) - 160 Bits=32x5
Next by Date: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
Previous by thread: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
Next by thread: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread