Did you review the slides I discussed during the behave working group
meeting as to what I view as the principal value of the technology? If
not, may I suggest that you obtain them from
ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/fred/gse/behave-nat66-gse.pdf
At this point, given the amount of discussion that has happened that
presumes that "we", for some definition of that term, are wise, smart,
and good, and everyone else (in your email, those thieving greedy
vendors), without taking into account the written statements or the
discussion that happened in the working group meeting (which is the
email address you conveniently dropped from the thread), I am at a
loss for words.
Take time to find out what I took time to tell people about my
motivations. Then, and only then, sit in judgement.
As a matter of fact, the IETF is looking very hard at solutions to the
problem I raise and has for the past several years been very
explicitly reaching out to operators and others. A GSE/8+8 approach,
which is the root of several proposed solutions in that area, can't
work without the components fundamental to it, one of which is a NAT.
On Nov 26, 2008, at 1:27 AM, <michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com> <michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com
> wrote:
Yeah, but we're trying to get rid of that stuff, or at least
considerably reduce the cost and complexity, because (among other
things) it presents a huge barrier to adoption of new multiparty
apps.
Promoters of NAT, particularly vendors, seem to have a two-valued
view of the network in which inside is good and outside is evil.
But network operators, who sit on the outside of the NAT,
do not share that view. In fact, we see a future in which
cloud computing centers within the network infrastructure
will lead to a wide variety of new multiparty applications.
In many cases the network operator also takes management
responsibility for gateway devices, so the idea of evil on
the outside is even further fetched.
That said, if there is to be some form of NAT66 because there
are real requirements elsewhere, it would be preferable if
the defined default state of this NAT66 was to *NOT* translate
addresses. This is not crazy if you see it in the context
of a NAT device which includes stateful firewalling.
I suggest that if part of the problem is an excess of
pressure from vendors, then the IETF could resolve this
by actively seeking greater input from other stakeholders
such as network operators.
--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf