Re: FW: Why?

Tony Hain wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tony Hain [mailto:tony(_at_)tndh(_dot_)net]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:23 PM
> > To: 'irtf-chair(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org'; 'iab(_at_)iab(_dot_)org'; 
> > 'iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org'
> > Cc: 'ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org'
> > Subject: Why?
> >
> > Why are we wasting effort in every WG and research area on NAT traversal
> > crap???
> >
> > All week people have been telling me that IPv6 has to show a clear value,
> > but those same people are totally writing off the cost of their effort to
> > define the array of NAT traversal schemes, the cost of vendors to build
> > that crap, then the extensive cost of network managers to operate the
> > complex environments that end up being created by this house of cards. It
> > is long past time that any protocol that requires a NAT helper is just a
> > non-starter and the WG should be closed.
> >
> > 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.
TRILL does not NAT, nor does it need specific mechanisms to traverse 
NATs (it works fine behind or in front, and isn't intended to be 
deployed across NATs).
If you have specific issue with the "TRILL crap", please provide details 
that indicate you have at least read the "TRILL crap".
Joe (co-author of the "TRILL crap")

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf