David Conrad wrote:
Tony,
On Nov 25, 2008, at 2:10 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
There is no valid reason for 66nat.
Then it will die in the marketplace and any standardization efforts
will simply fade away.
No it won't, because people will have deployed it in default configurations
without realizing they didn't need it.
The only justifications being given are
'people will do it anyway', and 'we have to move quickly because
vendors are
trying to build it'. This is called railroading in any other
context, and
absolutely no long term thought is going into the impact and
inability to
remove this once it is unleashed.
So, if vendors are trying to build it, it would seem to me that an
industry group focused on standardizing its functionality would be a
good thing, otherwise we get into the same mess we got into with IPv4.
If vendors aren't trying to build it, no significant harm is done
(other than the waste of time for folks participating in the
standardization).
Putting our fingers in our ears and singing "la la la" because we
don't think a particular technology should exist is unlikely to be
particularly beneficial.
This is not about ignoring the technology, it is about blindly legitimizing
short-term money making for a few box vendors at the long term expense to
the entire Internet application development and end user community. If it
were simply a stand-alone technology, it would have to show value before
being deployed. It is not, because the IPv4 version of it became mandatory,
and due to marketing crap synonymous with firewall. This ensures people will
deploy it a) without awareness as a default 'security' config, or b) because
they have completely drowned in the nat==security kool-aid. Either way the
app developers will have to rely on topology awareness crutches to deal with
the resulting nonsense.
A reasonable standards development effort would not blindly endorse
something known to be detrimental, simply because one constituency plans to
make a quick buck. We do have an Architecture Board, and a Steering Group,
so one would think we have reason to be thoughtful about the long term
impacts of what we publish. Instead all we get is complaints that anyone not
helping detail how to ship the broken architecture is ignoring reality and
off in a fantasy land, when the exact opposite is closer to the truth.
Rushing to restock the drug dealers while claiming we have no hand in the
outcome is about as far from reality as one can get.
Tony
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf