On 06/10/2010 01:43 p.m., Keith Moore wrote:
Honestly, I don't think we can tell. In the short term, it certainly
doesn't look good for end-to-end transparency. But unlike 10 years
ago, today there's a widespread understanding of the problems caused
by lack of transparency, and much less denial about it.
It's not clear to me what you mean by "end to end transparency". If you
mean "end to end connectivity", then I'd say that quite a few people are
actually *concerned* about going back to end-to-end connectivity.
I think that even without NATs (which is *not* going to be the case, as
it has already been pointed out), we can expect that at the edge,
firewalls that "only allow return traffic" will be the common case, even
for v6.
The central problem with the Internet seems to be that nearly
everybody who routes traffic thinks it's okay to violate the
architecture and alter the traffic to optimize for his/her specific
circumstances - and the end users and their wide variety of
applications just have to cope with the resulting brain damage.
When applications that e.g. include point of attachment addresses in the
app protocol break in the presence of NATs, one should probably ask
whether the NAT is breaking the app, or whether the NAT is making it
clear that the app was actually already broken.
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando(_at_)gont(_dot_)com(_dot_)ar || fgont(_at_)acm(_dot_)org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf