You seem to be of the impression that whether something "works" is binary. If a hack "works" in some situations and breaks things in others, does it work or is it broken? Note that different people will come up with different opinions on whether the hack works or not, depending on what apps they run, their role (are they users, or application vendors whose market decreases and support costs increase when network operators put in these hacks?), and so forth.
It has nothing to do with being a purist. A hack that causes a 1% failure rate is a lot more costly to some users than to others. That failure rate is low enough that ISPs can get into denial about whether the failure exists and refuse to fix it. But the users and application vendors suffer nonetheless. Here's the rule that should be followed: If your service or product doesn't adhere to the standards, you're responsible for whatever breakage results. Keith > What's this about NAT-PT being killed? I still see vendor literature > which mentions NAT-PT support. If it works, and it is implemented, > then people will use it. > > Same thing goes for Application Layer Gateways, i.e. proxies. > > I don't think any network operator is in the business of being an > IETF purist. It is desirable that hardware and software adheres to > standards but it is more important for them to *WORK*!!! And if there > is a standards vacuum, that will not stop deployment. > > --Michael Dillon > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
