Hi Noel,
On 30.07.2013 15:23, Noel Chiappa wrote:
I hear you, but... this is not a simple problem.
Yes, and I wasn't expecting it to be simple...
I think we need to start by understanding what drives the creation and
deployment of these devices. I think the answer to that has to be that some
people have needs that aren't being met by the IETF, and so there's an
opportunity for private entities to create and sell 'solutions'.
Agree, that would be one possible action...
The IETF doesn't have a police force, or any enforcement mechanism. If we're
Yep, that's true and I'm fully aware of it.
going to head off these boxes, the only tool we have to do that is to build
better mousetraps - i.e. design stuff that does what people want, is more
cost-effective, and is better than these local 'point deployment' boxes.
... NAT ...
is both ugly _and_ brittle [because it's not part of an architected _system_],
difficult to work with because it [mostly] lacks any external control
interface, etc.)
That is a little bit more along my direction. Maybe we can at least give
advice what to strictly avoid and how to leave a path open for
innovation, e.g., do expect that other transport protocols may exist in
the future, so do not assume that only TCP and UDP are in use, or:
be prepared to process/bypass extension headers etc.
So, sorry, I don't have a simple solution to what I concede is a real problem.
But it's a complicated problem -> no simple solution.
I wasn't expecting that. :-)
Regards,
Roland