Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Well, how about one RFC per possible NAT implementation? Some of them
would be anti-recommendations... but it wouldn't be the first time an
RFC recommended what NOT to do.
A side-effect would be that one could tell what kind of NAT it was by
looking at which RFC number is in the specs.
I have to say that the idea that vendors will create bad things because
bad ideas are put in RFCs seems a lot less likely than the idea that
vendors will create bad things without regard to what is in the RFCs.
Matthew Kaufman
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
