On Oct 26, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Chris Engel wrote: > 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.
what's this about feeling compelled? why shouldn't individuals object to IETF endorsement of things that have been demonstrated to cause harm to the Internet? nobody is telling you that you can't have NATs in your network. you're free to do what you want there. but you seem to think that you can demand IETF endorsement not only of NATs but of the kinds of NATs you want to use. this is utterly bizarre. you say you want consistent behavior of NATs. ideally, the consistent behavior should be one where there is no NAT involved. use of NAT should be the odd corner case, which will inherently vary from one situation to the next. it's inherently difficult to standardize those cases. fwiw, I could support a standard that specifies consistent behavior of NATs, but only if it applies to _all_ NATs (i.e. those that claim to conform to the standard) and only if it imposes a burden on _all_ such NATs to make them explicitly visible to, and controllable by, hosts/applications in such a way that those hosts/applications can still work in terms of globally-scoped addresses. but IETF has never been good at telling people "if you must do this bad thing, please do it this way". it has a hard enough time just getting people to understand the different levels of maturity for its standards for protocols that aren't believed to do harm. for that matter, vendors probably don't want to implement a standard that claims to do harm. Keith _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
