On 3/27/06 6:45 AM, "Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My apologies for not being clearer - my intention was not to criticize WG or > IAB actions in the past, but to point out that we are now in an escalating > game of whack-a-mole with our applications as the moles that NATs and FWs > are finding new ways to frustrate.
I think we're actually making similar points - if you find yourself playing whack-a-mole (and we are) there's a good chance that you're taking the wrong approach. In this particular case there's a reliance on using side-effects for NAT traversal, which suggests that we need sufficiently similar side-effects from all NATs for the approach to work predictably. Rather than concluding that maybe betting on uniformity in side-effects inside closed boxes isn't a great design decision there's been a tendency to respond to all these problems that have cropped up as if applying heaps of baling wire and duct tape will eventually get everything working properly. Melinda _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
