Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>
To: Eric Klein <ericlklein.ipv6 at gmail.com>
Cc: IAB <iab at ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>, IESG IESG <iesg at ietf.org>, alh-ietf at tndh.net, "behave at ietf.org WG" <Behave at ietf.org>, Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:39:45 +0100
In-reply-to: <18d24aa20811270739i129ce719o12d984c18d14eb7e at mail.gmail.com>
References: <015301c94c53$de4ec2f0$9aec48d0$ at net> <DACF609E-29EC-42BF-85A6-8DF68333FD27 at cisco.com> <18d24aa20811240256l1da6fbd1mca981bc2367e212f at mail.gmail.com> <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FFBAB at mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <18d24aa20811270739i129ce719o12d984c18d14eb7e at mail.gmail.com>

On 27 nov 2008, at 16:39, Eric Klein wrote:

There is a diffrence between doing aways with NAT, allowing naturalgrowth of NAT, and endorsing NAT. Of the 3 I only object to the 2ndone. So we either kill NAT so dead that it can not be brough backin any form or we find a way to meet the needs in a way that willnot "break the internet" nor prevent new p2p applications.

I agree with this. I'd prefer no NAT, but I'll take a predictable,contained NAT over NAT anarchy.

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

References:
- Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to application developers
  - From: Tony Hain
- Re: Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to application developers
  - From: Fred Baker
- Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to application developers
  - From: Eric Klein
- RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
  - From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
  - From: Eric Klein

Prev by Date: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
Next by Date: Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-10.txt
Previous by thread: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
Next by thread: Re: Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to application developers
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.