On 7/16/07 4:13 AM, "Brian E Carpenter"
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Maybe by a lack of simplicity?
Midcom and SIMCO are very simple. I think that there are a few problems,
which taken in aggregate make NAT "control" a hard sell. One is that
in even modestly complex networks either the application has to be
aware of and make decisions about topology or that the traversal
mechanism has to be aware of and make decisions about topology. I
started the network-friendly midcom stuff (which turned into the
NSIS nat and firewall work) because of that, but after having spent
more time with it I really think it is not deployable in real
networks, which we can talk about some other time. Another problem
is the lack of naming and lookup facilities. DNS SRV records are
probably going to be as good as it gets. VoIP protocols and others
that make use of embedded addresses actually do have an advantage here,
because they're able to transmit an acquired address in the application
signaling. However, that won't help with servers, P2P, and so on.
And, of course, there are heaps of political issues. Some of them
are as crude as being about who controls what, but there are some more
subtle ones around business models (the last time I talked about this
Keith insisted that the "IETF doesn't do business models," and I still
encourage him to take a good look at what's going on in what's now the
RAI area), as well, that shape the technical decisions that are made.
Melinda
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf