Did you review the slides I discussed during the behave working group
meeting as to what I view as the principal value of the technology? If
not, may I suggest that you obtain them from
ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/fred/gse/behave-nat66-gse.pdf
At this point, given the amount of discussion that
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 21:50, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> Yes, we all know that it is much easier to get O/S vendors to fix their
> billion plus lines of code and the apps vendors to fix their million plus
> lines of code than it is to deploy a $50 NAT box.
>
> What you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] WG; IAB; IETF Discussion;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IESG IESG
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to
> applicationdevelopers
>
>
> In message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> om>, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" writes:
>> This is
: Mark Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 11/26/2008 5:40 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Eric Klein; Fred Baker; [EMAIL PROTECTED] WG; IAB; IETF Discussion; [EMAIL
PROTECTED]; IESG IESG
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to
applicationdevelopers
In message
Mark Andrews wrote:
[...]
> And if you stop thinking IPv6 == IPv4 + big addresses and
> start thinking multiple IPv6 addresses including a ULA IPv6
> address + RFC 3484 you get local address stability without
> needing a NAT. You use ULAs for internal communication and
>
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 19:17, Ned Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would NAT66 my network for the simple reason that very few endpoint
> devices
> > actually tollerate a change in the IP address without at a minimum a
> service
> > interruption. Since I cannot guarantee that my IPv6 address
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 19:14, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Eric,
>
> The problem here is that you assume that the IETF has decision power that
> can magic away NAT66. Clearly it did not for NAT44 and will not for NAT66.
>
There is a diffrence between doing aways with NAT, a
Hi Ned,
On Nov 26, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
Again, it seems clear that since I'm using it I don't regard it as
unacceptable... The real question is how it will compare to whatever
IPv6
automatic renumbering support ends up in SOHO routers. (Please note
that I am
entirely indiffere
On Nov 26, 2008, at 12:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In any case, I think getting renumbering right and getting it
> deployed is an
> essential step in minimizing the use of NAT66.
This seems to ignore the fact that we already have a widely deployed
solution to site renumbering: NAT.
W
On 27 nov 2008, at 16:39, Eric Klein wrote:
There is a diffrence between doing aways with NAT, allowing natural
growth of NAT, and endorsing NAT. Of the 3 I only object to the 2nd
one. So we either kill NAT so dead that it can not be brough back
in any form or we find a way to meet the ne
Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> And if you stop thinking IPv6 == IPv4 + big addresses and
> start thinking multiple IPv6 addresses including a ULA IPv6
> address + RFC 3484 you get local address stability without
> needing a NAT. You use ULAs for internal communication and
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Mo
rris writes:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > If your OS requires a reboot when you renumber get a real OS.
> > If your apps require that they restart when you renumber get
> > your apps fixed.
>
> I fail to understand how an
David Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >
> > If your OS requires a reboot when you renumber get a real OS.
> > If your apps require that they restart when you renumber get
> > your apps fixed.
>
> I fail to understand how an app such as ssh can maintain a s
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> If your OS requires a reboot when you renumber get a real OS.
> If your apps require that they restart when you renumber get
> your apps fixed.
I fail to understand how an app such as ssh can maintain a secure
connection in the face
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
om>, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" writes:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> Eric,
>
> The problem here is that you assume that the IETF has decision power
> that can magic away NAT66. Clearly it did not for NAT44 and will not for
> NAT66.
>
> So the real
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> Could we agree on a consensus point that:
>
> 'Any application developer who designs a protocol on the assumption it
> will not be subject to NAT66 may be disappointed'
I think it would be far more constructive to tell application developers
what they _can_ assume.
On Nov 26, 2008, at 12:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, I think getting renumbering right and getting it
deployed is an
essential step in minimizing the use of NAT66.
This seems to ignore the fact that we already have a widely deployed
solution to site renumbering: NAT.
IPv4
Hi -
> From: "james woodyatt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Behave WG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to
> applicationdevelopers
...
> T
> The problem here is that you assume that the IETF has decision power that can
> magic away NAT66. Clearly it did not for NAT44 and will not for NAT66.
I really hope you aren't correct about this, but I fear you are.
> So the real question for App designers is:
> 1) Should they design protoco
.
Can is opened, Do you want to borrow a soldering iron and a spoon to try and
push 'em back in?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of james woodyatt
Sent: Tue 11/25/2008 7:34 PM
To: Behave WG
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long
: IAB; [EMAIL PROTECTED] WG; IETF Discussion; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
IESG IESG
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to
applicationdevelopers
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
The discu
Keith More writes:
>I don't think so in either case. The reason I don't think so is that I
>suspect the NAT traversal problem is really a firewall traversal problem
>in disguise.
Absolutely, and that is why there needs to be a permissions system that allows
effective decisions to be made wit
this will cost me real time and money to
fix.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Eric Klein
Sent: Mon 11/24/2008 5:56 AM
To: Fred Baker
Cc: IAB; [EMAIL PROTECTED] WG; IETF Discussion; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IESG IESG
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'IETF Discussion'
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to
applicationdevelopers
Please,
any input into this debate shall go to the behave list. People
interested in this topic please subscribe to Behave.
Regards
Magnus
Pet
> Yeah, but we're trying to get rid of that stuff, or at least
> considerably reduce the cost and complexity, because (among other
> things) it presents a huge barrier to adoption of new multiparty apps.
Promoters of NAT, particularly vendors, seem to have a two-valued
view of the network in whic
25 matches
Mail list logo
