You seem to be of the impression that whether something "works" is
binary. If a hack "works" in some situations and breaks things in
others, does it work or is it broken? Note that different people will
come up with different opinions on whether the hack works or not,
depending on what apps they run, their role (are they users, or
application vendors whose market decreases and support costs increase
when network operators put in these hacks?), and so forth.
It has nothing to do with being a purist. A hack that causes a 1%
failure rate is a lot more costly to some users than to others. That
failure rate is low enough that ISPs can get into denial about whether
the failure exists and refuse to fix it. But the users and application
vendors suffer nonetheless.
Here's the rule that should be followed: If your service or product
doesn't adhere to the standards, you're responsible for whatever
breakage results.
Keith
What's this about NAT-PT being killed? I still see vendor literature
which mentions NAT-PT support. If it works, and it is implemented,
then people will use it.
Same thing goes for Application Layer Gateways, i.e. proxies.
I don't think any network operator is in the business of being an
IETF purist. It is desirable that hardware and software adheres to
standards but it is more important for them to *WORK*!!! And if there
is a standards vacuum, that will not stop deployment.
--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf