Michael Richardson wrote:
Harald> And - here I am making a real leap of faith - if the IETF
Harald> recommendations for NAT devices make manufacturers who
Harald> listen to them create NAT devices that make their customers
Harald> more happy, then many of these new NAT devices may be
Harald> conformant to IETF recommendations.
Do we really want customers of NAT devices to be happy?
I think we want to enable an Internet that works and serves the needs of
its users. We are still going to be seeing IPv4 on the network for a
while still, and I believe it is worth our time to make sure that new
applications can more easily be built for that network.
During the BoF session, there were folks from many of the major vendors
of such devices, and those folks said that they felt that the IETF
recommendations on NAT behavior stood a good chance of being implemented.
Harald> (Note - I sympathize with Pekka's touching faith in Teredo
Harald> as the Big Solution.... I hope he's right. So the NAT
Harald> recommendations may in that case boil down to a single
Harald> "Don't break Teredo"
Harald> If that's the case.... it's worth saying.)
I don't think we need a working group to say this.
I think that the IAB could write a document much easier that said
I think the work to be done is far more complicated than just saying
"don't break teredo". There is a lot of variability in NAT treatment of
fundamental IP protocols - UDP, TCP, etc. Nailing down these
variabilities can make applications more robust, more secure, and easier
to design and deploy - a goal I think we all share.
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
jdrosen(_at_)dynamicsoft(_dot_)com FAX: (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000
Ietf mailing list