|
»
« Return to Thread: NAT66: my conclusions
Re: NAT66: my conclusions
by Brian E Carpenter-2
::
Rate this Message:
On 2008-12-01 06:38, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
...
>
> However, I believe there is something useful that the IETF can do, and
> that is mostly what the BEHAVE wg has already been doing: document NAT
> behavior, and create specifications for applications that want to work
> through those NATs. But with IPv6 we have the opportunity to be
> proactive: rather than describe the harm that existing NATs do, BEHAVE
> could publish a document that describes the various ways IPv6 NATs could
> be implemented, and then order these in order of increasing harm,
> outlining the harmful effects each type of NAT66s would have. Along with
> some easy to understand terminology or numeric ranking, this would allow
> application vendors to communicate what types of NAT their products will
> work with and which they won't, and allow end-users to specify to their
> middlebox vendors what kind of NAT they want to buy.
I think you're a bit optimistic about the average vendor's concern about
the greater good of the Internet as opposed to their own revenue stream.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't_stuff_beans_up_your_nose
Documenting the more harmful forms of NAT may just encourage people
to look for a good commercial reason to sell them. Documenting only
the least harmful will still run the risk of encouraging vendors,
but maybe only to do the least bad thing.
If you *must* stuff beans up your nose, here is how do it somewhat safely...
It's a dilemma.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
...
>
> However, I believe there is something useful that the IETF can do, and
> that is mostly what the BEHAVE wg has already been doing: document NAT
> behavior, and create specifications for applications that want to work
> through those NATs. But with IPv6 we have the opportunity to be
> proactive: rather than describe the harm that existing NATs do, BEHAVE
> could publish a document that describes the various ways IPv6 NATs could
> be implemented, and then order these in order of increasing harm,
> outlining the harmful effects each type of NAT66s would have. Along with
> some easy to understand terminology or numeric ranking, this would allow
> application vendors to communicate what types of NAT their products will
> work with and which they won't, and allow end-users to specify to their
> middlebox vendors what kind of NAT they want to buy.
I think you're a bit optimistic about the average vendor's concern about
the greater good of the Internet as opposed to their own revenue stream.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't_stuff_beans_up_your_nose
Documenting the more harmful forms of NAT may just encourage people
to look for a good commercial reason to sell them. Documenting only
the least harmful will still run the risk of encouraging vendors,
but maybe only to do the least bad thing.
If you *must* stuff beans up your nose, here is how do it somewhat safely...
It's a dilemma.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
« Return to Thread: NAT66: my conclusions
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
