Dan Wing wrote: > ALGs are harmful and the NAT industry has over a decade experience > that shows ALGs are harmful. ALGs have prevented proper operation > of SIP, FTP, and a variety of other protocols.
Harmful in your sense of the word is good, in some circles. Remember, we are only talking about ALGs to the outside Internet, not ALGs in paths internal to the controls network. (I guess I didn't make that clear when responding to Joel, but Roland did.) And too, other networks that are non-critical would not be limited this way. In some circles, the fact that SIP, FTP, or what have you, are either hampered or rendered useless, from the Internet direct to an internal device, is deemed to be a feature. Nothing must be allowed to go direct. I think there are very few arguments now, if any, that would change this culture. In fact, all the talk is about locking everything down more, not less. People get beat up for creating vulnerabilities, never for making outside access more difficult. And yet, IP is what everyone is specifying. Go figure. Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
