Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile
Joe, > On 27 Aug 2018, at 10:27, Joe Touch wrote: > > > >> On Aug 26, 2018, at 11:55 PM, Ole Troan wrote: >> >> Joe, >> > On 26 Aug 2018, at 23:12, Joe Touch wrote: > > As I’ve mentioned, there are rules under which a NAT is a valid Internet > device, but it is simply not just a router. If there really was, can you point to where those rules are? Describing the behavior of the host stack and applications? >>> >>> The principles are described and explained here: >>> >>> Touch, J: Middlebox Models Compatible with the Internet. USC/ISI >>> (ISI-TR-711), 2016. ( >>> >> >> I don’t want to dismiss this completely, but it hand waves over how >> applications are supposed to work in this new Internet architecture. >> You can define your way out of breaking end-to-end, but that doesn’t mean >> you can ignore all the issues of NAT traversal. > > You’ve missed the point - if the middleboxes describe behave as required, > apps do not need to change. They work as they would in an Internet without > those boxes. Quite likely. Do you have a document describing how my SIP application works? Ore are you saying PCP, ICE, TURN etc is part of your architecture? Cheers Ole___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile
> On Aug 26, 2018, at 11:55 PM, Ole Troan wrote: > > Joe, > >>> On 26 Aug 2018, at 23:12, Joe Touch wrote: As I’ve mentioned, there are rules under which a NAT is a valid Internet device, but it is simply not just a router. >>> >>> If there really was, can you point to where those rules are? Describing the >>> behavior of the host stack and applications? >> >> The principles are described and explained here: >> >> Touch, J: Middlebox Models Compatible with the Internet. USC/ISI >> (ISI-TR-711), 2016. ( >> > > I don’t want to dismiss this completely, but it hand waves over how > applications are supposed to work in this new Internet architecture. > You can define your way out of breaking end-to-end, but that doesn’t mean you > can ignore all the issues of NAT traversal. You’ve missed the point - if the middleboxes describe behave as required, apps do not need to change. They work as they would in an Internet without those boxes. Joe___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Re: [Int-area] WG Adoption Call: IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile
Joe, >>> >>> On 26 Aug 2018, at 23:12, Joe Touch wrote: >>> >>> As I’ve mentioned, there are rules under which a NAT is a valid Internet >>> device, but it is simply not just a router. >> >> If there really was, can you point to where those rules are? Describing the >> behavior of the host stack and applications? > > The principles are described and explained here: > > Touch, J: Middlebox Models Compatible with the Internet. USC/ISI > (ISI-TR-711), 2016. ( > I don’t want to dismiss this completely, but it hand waves over how applications are supposed to work in this new Internet architecture. You can define your way out of breaking end-to-end, but that doesn’t mean you can ignore all the issues of NAT traversal. Cheers Ole___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
