Brian, The point I'm trying to make is why should individuals feel compelled to oppose the creation of a standard simply because that standard is only applicable to a particular scope of usage cases. For example, my company doesn't utilize VoIP.... is it reasonable for us to oppose the existance of VoIP standards or some-one elses choice to utilize VoIP as a technology simply because we won't utilize it?
The same should hold true for NAT. Those of us on the Enterprise side who CHOOSE to deploy NAT know full well that it will break certain types of apps. In general we DON'T want those type of apps crossing our network boundaries in the first place.....and take steps to try to block them even without NAT. We further recognize that IF we do want to utilize one of those apps through NAT WE bear the burden/cost for establishing a work around. Why is it not acceptable for us to ask for a standard for NAT in IPv6 that would cover our usage case? No one is arguing for a standard that NAT MUST be deployed across the entire internet. People simply want a standard by which organizations which CHOOSE to deploy it on their OWN network boundaries can expect it to behave consistently. Christopher Engel Network Infrastructure Manager SponsorDirect [email protected] www.SponsorDirect.com p(914) 729-7218 f (914) 729-7201 > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 6:30 PM > To: Gert Doering > Cc: Roger Marquis; Margaret Wasserman; [email protected] > Subject: [nat66] e2e [New Version Notification for draft-mrw-nat66-00] > > > Gert, > > On 2010-10-26 04:59, Gert Doering wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 05:41:30PM +0200, Rémi Després wrote: > >> But, again, many users already use "native" IPv6 (neither 6to4 nor > >> Teredo) and no bomb has exploded. And AFAIK no bomb is timed to > >> explode either. > > > > Please understand that *your* customers are not the type of > networks > > Chris Engel talks about. Residential and enterprise are the most > > distant points in a spectrum - residential *wants* e2e and > p2p apps, > > while enterprise does *not* want that. > > > > This discussion has been rehashed a number of times now, > and it's time > > that the "anti-NAT" crowd starts to accept that e2e is not > a desirable > > property in some networks, and thus, this aspect of NAT doesn't do > > "harm". > > The problem comes when one of the ends tries to participate > in a multi-party protocol. The state that a NAPT creates to > permit a two-party protocol to work isn't able to support a > third party. > > So, people whose model of connection to the Internet only > involves two-party client-server protocols can use the > arguments Chris Engel has expressed, but if they want > multi-party protocols they have to start using some kind of > kludge. (I am including things like ICE in the category "kludge".) > > Has anyone analysed how stateless NAT66 will impact > multi-party applications? Since it doesn't break address > uniqueness, there may be hope. > > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > nat66 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 > _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
