--On tirsdag, september 21, 2004 13:55:10 +0300 Pekka Savola
<pekkas(_at_)netcore(_dot_)fi> wrote:
(Removed Cc: iesg)
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On mandag, september 20, 2004 14:38:51 -0400 Michael Richardson
<mcr(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ottawa(_dot_)on(_dot_)ca> 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?
Given that I'm one of them, and will continue to be one until the IPv4
Internet fades to where I can ignore it.... yes.
The point is not whether the users behind an IPv4 NAT are happy or
not.
The point is which kind of applications you can reasonably expect to
deploy behind an IPv4 NAT, and be happy.
I agree with Harald that v4 NATs are going to be here a decade from
now. But that's irrelevant, if those people using the NAT only use
simple client-server applications.
Well.... my house was behind 2 levels of NAT until last week.
Once i got rid of one level (the one I don't control), some of my
operational problems with keeping SSH sessions up simply went away.
And SSH is a client-server protocol.
Don't underestimate the capability of badly implemented and/or configured
NATs to make things go boom in the night.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf