Hi Melinda,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Led
-----Message d'origine-----
De : ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] De la part de Melinda
Shore
Envoyé : mardi 11 avril 2017 19:32
À : ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Objet : Re: draft-dolson-plus-middlebox-benefits (was RE: Review of draft-
mm-wg-effect-encrypt-09)
On 4/11/17 9:18 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
One could give a lot of advice for design of protocols with
"friendly" middle boxes. Merely saying "hey, they are good" is not
enough. We might want to revisit end-to-end protocol design as well
(e.g., maybe ICMP isn't working so well; what can we do?).
There have been a number of efforts to provide mechanisms for
applications to communicate explicitly with middleboxes. None
has gotten any traction,
[Med] I'm not sure "None" and "any" reflect the deployment realty I'm aware of:
* The BEHAVE recommendations for TCP(RFC5382)/UDP(RFC4787)/ICMP(RFC5508) and
CGNs (RFC6888) are widely followed by CGN vendors.
* The NAT64 (RFC6146)/DS-Lite CGN (RFC6333) specifications that is aligned with
IETF BEHAVE recommendations are deployed in many networks with default
behaviors that are friendly to applications.
* Our customers are making use of PCP (RFC6887) to interact with CGNs.
* Applications that make use of UPnP-IGD interact with an CGN server by means
of a IGD/PC IWG (RFC 6970)
* Applications embedded on the CPE can interact with a local PCP client.
Sometimes the problem is not on the network side but elsewhere.
and for the moment it looks like
anything that requires changes to middleboxes along those
lines is unlikely to be successful. That said:
IMO the IETF must not publish draft-dolson-plus-middlebox-benefits as
it is today.
No, clearly not. I'm actually not sure I see a lot of benefit
to publishing a more balanced document, either, in the sense that
it's not likely to lead anybody to do anything differently.
[Med] I disagree with this position. Many times the IETF decided to not hide a
problem but to deal with it, interesting solutions are proposed with concrete
deployments. Of course, resistance to some proposals may have consequences on
some operators plans that are obliged to deploy **mature solutions they had at
hand**.
Melinda