[VOIPSEC] IPv6 and the demise (or not) ofNAT(wasRe: InteractiveConnectivity Establishment (ICE))

[Hadriel Kaplan]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org [mailto:Voipsec-bounces at voipsa.org] On
>
>         Those numbers will be changing and already are.  

I'm hoping.  More on-net means more subscribers went voip.  (I was only
talking about consumer voip, by the way - enterprise is on-net a lot,
peering never is of course)

> For video calls,
> of course, they're all on-net.  

Who offers that in the US, other than GlowPoint?  I know Europe and Asia
there are a few providers, but I thought it was still small scale. 

> Which method of avoiding relaying were
> you referring to?

There are at least three methods I've heard of.  I can't say which ones we
do as it's confidential and this isn't a vendor product forum.  I was merely
trying to say SBCs have methods to do media release, even in complex call
scenarios.  They're self-contained mechanisms.  I actually think we could
even do more if it was worth it, but it hasn't been.  But an SBC's problem
space is easier than ietf's - for NAT traversal we only care about SIP/MGCP
and knowing there will be a service provider box on the outside of the NAT
that all signaling traverses helps a lot.  

-hadriel