On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Erik Nordmark wrote:
Tony Hain wrote:
Why are we wasting effort in every WG and research area on NAT traversal
FWIW I'm also concerned that we are doing too many different NAT
traversal protocols. It should be sufficient to just define how IPv6 is
tunneled across NATs and start using more IPv6 in the applications.
I agree wholeheartedly. Lets face the reality of the situation.
Carriers have abused IPv4 for financial reasons. As a result, NAT is
widely deployed, because it was and is an effective workaround for
dealing with siad carriers trying to squeeze extra money from IP
addresses. There is nothing that can be done about that now, except
implement the solution that has been written to solve the problem, IPv6,
right on top of the existing NAT's. With full application layer support
for v6, NAT will eventually deprecate, and be little more than a bad
memory. The open source community has a wide variety of v6 enabled
daemons and clients already, for almost every widely used protocol. While
these can easily be implemented on any host, good luck getting the general
public to do so. The solution for migration most likely lies in somebody
developing a little v6 router, that autoconfigs a tunnel with a small
allocation of addresses.
On another topic, why is it that the API is so sacred that we will create
a massive array of complex approaches to avoid defining a real session
layer. We put imitation session efforts at layer 4 (SCTP), layer 3.5 (HIP),
layer 3.25 (shim), and the TRILL crap is trying to do it at layer 2.5.
I don't understand what makes you think TRILL is trying to do a session
layer. If it does, then any other routing and tunneling approach should
also be given the same verdict.
Ietf mailing list
sleekfreak pirate broadcast
Ietf mailing list