RE: Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com>]

Title: Re: Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers

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 that it is beyond rational argument to claim otherwise. Furthermore, if it is really the interests of application layer protocol designers that are being considered here, then why am I reading so many posts from network layer folk telling me what my problems are?

 

HTTP was originally designed to run just fine over OSI and DECNET. In fact I have deployed HTTP over DECNETv4. The fact that it runs just fine over past protocols is one of the reasons that NAT works and why HTTP works just fine over IPv6.

 

---

From: ietf-bounces at ietf.org on behalf of Fred Baker
Sent: Sat 11/22/2008 12:07 AM
To: alh-ietf at tndh.net
Cc: behave at ietf.org WG; IAB; IETF Discussion; IESG IESG
Subject: Re: Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers

On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Tony Hain wrote:

> The discussion today in Behave shows there is very strong peer-
> pressure group-think with no serious analysis of the long term 
> implications about what is being discussed.

Yes, there is a very clear anti-NAT religion that drives a lot of 
thought. It's not clear that any other opinion is tolerated.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf