David Conrad wrote: > Tony, > > On Nov 25, 2008, at 2:10 PM, Tony Hain wrote: > > There is no valid reason for 66nat. > > Then it will die in the marketplace and any standardization efforts > will simply fade away.
No it won't, because people will have deployed it in default configurations without realizing they didn't need it. > > > The only justifications being given are > > 'people will do it anyway', and 'we have to move quickly because > > vendors are > > trying to build it'. This is called railroading in any other > > context, and > > absolutely no long term thought is going into the impact and > > inability to > > remove this once it is unleashed. > > So, if vendors are trying to build it, it would seem to me that an > industry group focused on standardizing its functionality would be a > good thing, otherwise we get into the same mess we got into with IPv4. > > If vendors aren't trying to build it, no significant harm is done > (other than the waste of time for folks participating in the > standardization). > > Putting our fingers in our ears and singing "la la la" because we > don't think a particular technology should exist is unlikely to be > particularly beneficial. This is not about ignoring the technology, it is about blindly legitimizing short-term money making for a few box vendors at the long term expense to the entire Internet application development and end user community. If it were simply a stand-alone technology, it would have to show value before being deployed. It is not, because the IPv4 version of it became mandatory, and due to marketing crap synonymous with firewall. This ensures people will deploy it a) without awareness as a default 'security' config, or b) because they have completely drowned in the nat==security kool-aid. Either way the app developers will have to rely on topology awareness crutches to deal with the resulting nonsense. A reasonable standards development effort would not blindly endorse something known to be detrimental, simply because one constituency plans to make a quick buck. We do have an Architecture Board, and a Steering Group, so one would think we have reason to be thoughtful about the long term impacts of what we publish. Instead all we get is complaints that anyone not helping detail how to ship the broken architecture is ignoring reality and off in a fantasy land, when the exact opposite is closer to the truth. Rushing to restock the drug dealers while claiming we have no hand in the outcome is about as far from reality as one can get. Tony _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
