> Melinda Shore wrote:
> although frankly this is one particular area where
> there's a clear and growing divide between this
> community and the network administrator community
> (particularly enterprise and residential).
Because this community has long ignored real problems and followed the
lead of protocol fanatics or rhetoricians that for the sake of technical
elegance design protocols and architectures that look real nice on paper
and don't solve real world issues.
> We've known about these problems for a very long time
> and the argument that these problems are a serious
> impediment to network {stability,robustness,whathaveyou}
> have not been accepted by the people who deploy real
> networks.
The seriousness of the impediments is grossly overblown in this
community. In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice,
they're not. If NAT was that bad, nobody would use it. NAT is bad, but
not bad enough to disappear.
> I imagine we're going to be running into a similar
> situation with the mad use of tunnels in the
> not-too-distant future.
The market as always will pick the solution that is the best compromise.
Just like NAT, saying that tunnels are bad is as efficient as going duck
hunting with an accordion. If this community does not want to see mad
use of tunnels, it must provide a better solution instead of whining. It
must design protocols and architectures with users in mind, not to
please software developers.
Saying that people that deploy real networks should not use NAT because
NAT creates problems is the same as saying that people should not drive
cars because they pollute. Yes they do, and I'm driving one anyway.
Michel.
