Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Mind you, I'm not saying that protocols should always use a UDP
shim layer. But I think the tradeoffs in favor of doing so are a bit
stronger
than you seem to think.
This is my chance to act the naif for Valentine's Day, but ...
I agree that UDP shims improve your ability to get through a NAT in the
short term. However (and especially given Melinda pointing out that NATs
impede connectivity for technical reasons, but firewalls impede connectivity
for policy reasons), we need to recognize that this is an arms race.
Thats why you need to separate it.
Running ontop of UDP and TCP means that your protocol can function
through a NAT which exists for the purpose of NAT, regardless of
firewall and administrative policy. And it means its in a format that
your firewall vendor COULD manage policy for. It removes the TECHNICAL
barriers to working on the Internet, leaving just the POLICY barriers.
Now, that doesn't address the problem of how we do a better job of
managing those policy barriers. But one step at a time.
-Jonathan R.
--
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