On Mar 23, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On Mar 23, 2009, at 4:04 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
IMHO, an even more appropriate solution would be to drop the
datagram
and reply "Destination Unreachable", to cause the originating
host to do
a better job of address selection.
See, now you're asking the host or the app to do the network's job.
Actually, no. I am asking the host to do it's job.
RFC 3484, whatever its issues may be, makes it the host's job to
select
an address pair that makes sense.
STRONGLY disagree. The title says "Default". That implies that it's
not the only way to do address selection. And as a practical
matter, an
algorithm like that in RFC 3484 that is based entirely on prefix
matching can never work well for all cases even for client-server apps
and it certainly can't work well for apps that do referrals.
3484 would never had gotten consensus had it claimed to be
mandatory, as
it was clearly not workable as a general solution.
Well, yes. The host could select addresses another way. It remains the
host's job to pick addresses that make sense.
The most sense for whom? Certainly not for the app, nor for the
user of
the app, nor for the vendor of the app who has to get his app
working in
dysfunctional environments.
Well, would you like the network to select the addresses for the host?
If so, I have a tool nearby that would enable me to overwrite the
addresses the host uses. Except you don't seem to like that either.
So whatever I do, I'm wrong and you're right. That's not much of a
conversation. Would you like to have a conversation, or would you like
to continue in this mode of brickbats?
I for one am through discussing this aspect. I don't think it is
helping to clarify requirements.
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
