what's the point of this exercise?
To try and minimize the damage NATs cause
Well, as far as I can tell, you're not doing that to any significant
to encourage predictable behavior that applications cannot use?
The functionaly here defined here allow two hosts behind two differnt
NATs to be able to set up a dirrect flow of packets between them.
A solution that only works for pairs of hosts is of fairly limited
applicability. Most two-host applications already work through NAT.
The biggest set of apps affected by NAT are distributed applications.
Again, maybe it's not possible to define a spec that NAT vendors will
implement that gets rid of NAT brain damage to any useful degree. If
this is the belief of the BEHAVE WG then the correct output of the
BEHAVE group is to state that belief, rather than to define a spec that
provides the appearance of a solution while only providing a very
marginal increase in actual functionality.
Personally I'm tired of attempts to avoid solving the NAT problem while
glossing over it. I don't think IETF should be endorsing NAT fixes
that don't provide a path to a viable long-term solution.
Ietf mailing list