Joe Touch wrote:
Tony Hain wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Tony Hain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:23 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'iab@iab.org'; 'iesg@ietf.org' Cc: 'ietf@ietf.org' Subject: Why?
Why are we wasting effort in every WG and research area on NAT traversal crap???
All week people have been telling me that IPv6 has to show a clear value,
but those same people are totally writing off the cost of their effort to
define the array of NAT traversal schemes, the cost of vendors to build
that crap, then the extensive cost of network managers to operate the
complex environments that end up being created by this house of cards. It
is long past time that any protocol that requires a NAT helper is just a
non-starter and the WG should be closed.
On another topic, why is it that the API is so sacred that we will create
a massive array of complex approaches to avoid defining a real session
layer. We put imitation session efforts at layer 4 (SCTP), layer 3.5
(HIP),
layer 3.25 (shim), and the TRILL crap is trying to do it at layer 2.5.
TRILL does not NAT, nor does it need specific mechanisms to traverse NATs (it works fine behind or in front, and isn't intended to be deployed across NATs).
FWIW, TRILL also does not emulate a session layer either, any more than the state in routing or bridging does.
Although you have issue with session layer emulation and its overuse, beware the words of Abraham Maslow: "when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything _LOOKS_ like a nail" [emphasis mine]. TRILL is not a nail.
If you have specific issue with the "TRILL crap", please provide details that indicate you have at least read the "TRILL crap".
Joe (co-author of the "TRILL crap")
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
