ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: I-D Action:draft-rosenberg-internet-waist-hourglass-00.txt]

2008-02-13 11:47:47
Well, if history is any guide, eventually people will in fact want to 
run this from someplace a little farther away, and then you're in big 
trouble. So, I think the advice remains the same. There is no drawback 
to having it over UDP to start with - it works when there are no NAT, 
and it can work when there are NAT.

-Jonathan R.

Joel M. Halpern wrote:
However, I would really like to reinforce the point from another note. 
There are quite a few contexts where the ability to run a sensible 
transport directly over IP is indeed very useful.  For example, the 
ForCES working group scope is limited (by chart) to the case where the 
control element is near the forwarding element.  I am not worried about 
there being a NAT between those.  So SCTP or DCCP over IP is very relevant.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern


Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
I wrote this because of a discussion that happened during behave at the 
last IETF meeting in Vancouver. There was a presentation in the behave 
working group on NAT ALG for SCTP - when run natively over IP - and I 
found the entire conversation surreal. The entire problem would have 
been moot if SCTP had been designed to run over UDP and not IP.

So apparently its not obvious to everyone that you cannot design 
protocols natively ontop of IP.

-Jonathan R.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   499 Thornall St.
Cisco Fellow                                   Edison, NJ 08837
Cisco, Voice Technology Group
jdrosen(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (408) 902-3084
http://www.cisco.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>