On 3/27/06 6:45 AM, "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer(_at_)mcsr-labs(_dot_)org> wrote:
My apologies for not being clearer - my intention was not to criticize WG or
IAB actions in the past, but to point out that we are now in an escalating
game of whack-a-mole with our applications as the moles that NATs and FWs
are finding new ways to frustrate.
I think we're actually making similar points - if you find yourself
playing whack-a-mole (and we are) there's a good chance that you're
taking the wrong approach. In this particular case there's a reliance
on using side-effects for NAT traversal, which suggests that we need
sufficiently similar side-effects from all NATs for the approach to
work predictably. Rather than concluding that maybe betting on
uniformity in side-effects inside closed boxes isn't a great design
decision there's been a tendency to respond to all these problems
that have cropped up as if applying heaps of baling wire and duct
tape will eventually get everything working properly.
Melinda
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf