RE: Why people by NATs
>>> Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>> What if you want to do VoIP from _multiple_
>>> computers or even real VoIP phones.
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> This has never been an issue in the enterprise.
> Indeed not if they are keeping the traffic local or using
> a proxy. Then you don't have to circumvent NAT anyhow.
Jeroen, this is the usual way. What I am trying to tell you is that you keep
arguing about problems that don't exist.
Back to the home/SIP issue: Have you seen the latest Linksys with voice? It's a
regular Linksys "router" with the guts of a Sipura SPA-2000 ATA grafted to it.
I have not seen the code for it, but it seems logical that the SIP part would
not even have to cross NAT, as it is in the same box that does NAT and
therefore has a straight shot at the outside IP address. What was your problem
again?
> [Game Server]
> And please don't say you have to do manual
> port forwarding on the NAT box.
You don't have to. There are several NAT traversal mechanisms that don't
require manual port forwarding nor uPNP. Skype and Morpheus being examples:
zero configuration, and you can place _and_ receive calls (or download _and_
share files). With Skype you can have multiple phone clients behind the NAT
that can each receive calls specific to them and even call each other.
> And please don't say you have to do manual
> port forwarding on the NAT box.
And let me add this: I use port forwarding preferably to uPNP. I like being the
one in charge of what's happening on my network. But this is me; for Joe
Six-Pack uPNP or Skype-type mechanisms are acceptable.
> End to end is not possible
Users don't give a rip; they don't even know what it is.
> +-+ +---+ .--,--,--. +---+ +-+
> | Game Server |--| NAT_A |--{ Internet }--| NAT_B |--| Game Client |
> +-+ +---+ `-,---,--' +---+ +-+
> Or are you depending on a public server on the internet?
Then what? You're depending on it anyway as most games will check the serial
number to see if it's not pirated. Adding the NAT traversal mechanism to it,
who cares? Again, don't say "it does not work" because it actually does. You
might not like the way it is done, your problem.
>> I'm not defending NAT, but the course of action that says people
>> will have to use IPv6 because NAT is not working is flawed.
> Quoting yourself from above:
>> This where NAT sucks: game developers have to
>> write NAT-compatible code.
> I rest my case ;)
That's where you are missing the point: I'm a user; I don't care if the job of
game developers is harder. Economics 101: I will buy the games that work on my
system which includes NAT like everyone else. I vote with my wallet, write
games that cross NAT and get my money or don't and die. Though luck, but that's
the way it is.
Don't confuse "working" and "sucks". The user has no idea whatsoever what it
takes to cross NAT, does not care, and does not care either if you and/or the
IETF consider the practice impure or heretic.
>> - What would it buy the cybercafé owner to have IPv6?
>> Nothing. First, if I needed IPv6 while traveling I would
>> not rely on availability so I have my own. Second, his
>> tunneling might be worse than my own (the cybercafé does
>> not run BGP; I do).
> You run BGP where? On your laptop, tunneling IPv4/IPv6
> over the cafe's IPv4/IPv6 connectivity? This does not
> make sense.
I run BGP in California with multiple peers. In many situations, I would be
better off tunneling IPv6 from Mexico to California then let the California
router decide which one of the peers is the best, opposed to relying on the
IPv6 provided by the cybercafé if it's a Freenet6 client that hauls the traffic
back to Montreal.
Not trying to point any fingers as I do not know the specifics, possibly I
could even be better off tunneling IPv6 from DC/IETF back to California instead
of relying on the IPv6 provided there which was quite scenic routing.
>> Would the cybercafé owner be able to charge me $2 for 30
>> minutes instead of $2 per hour? No. Would I choose his
>> cybercafé instead of the one next door if the sign said
>> "IPv6"? No.
> The question is more: would you pay $2 for 30 minutes of
> non-NATted connectivity against $2 for 60 minutes of
> NATted and crippled connectivity ?
NO! and the reason is it's not crippled: it would _not_ work smoother; it would
_not_ work faster and I would have _no_ extra features. All I care is that I
get a DHCP address with the default gateway a DNS server configured right. In
this and many other situations being behind NAT or not does not change
_anything_ in terms of usability.
> Easy choice for me, I rather pay a bit more for real connectivity,
Geek syndrome. Lots of people on this list have a bad case of it (starting with
me). For a long time, I though that the smallest acceptable home router needed
redundant CPU and redundant power. My wife eventually got tired of the space,
noise, h
WYSIKN authoring tool for xml2rfc format
Folks, I wrote a plugin for the XMLMind XML editor to edit the xml2rfc format. I'm not going to claim that it's WYSIWYG, but it certainly makes editing documents easier for me. More information is available (and the plugin is downloadable from): http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/xml2rfc-xxe/ The XMLMind XML editor standard edition is freely available; source is available with the professional edition. It's written in Java; I've tested the plugin with it on MacOS X and Windows. Please let me know if you try it and have any comments, suggestions or requests that aren't listed in the help's known limitations. Bill ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why people by NATs
Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 01:38 -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Oh, sorry. Not *exactly*. It's the DHCP *server* which does the DNS > > > update. > > > > My DHCP server is firmware in my Linksys :-). > > Which is a Linux box, which can be upgraded ;) As the maintainer of the Linksys Blue Box Router HOWTO, I am quite well aware of this fact. And if my objective were to have exciting adventures in system and network administration, I would have reflashed my Linksys long since. I don't want to have exciting adventures in system and network administration. I want my home network to just freaking *work* so I can concentrate on the problems where my time is most valuable. -- http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director
Sounds good to me. Bert > -Original Message- > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 14:35 > To: scott bradner; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director > > > Trying to wrap the ExDir discussion: > > The IETF process documents have been written with the > assumption in a few > places that there exists an IETF Executive Director, and that > IETF process > documents can assign tasks to that person. > The things that the process documents mention explicitly are > far less than > a full time job; the job that the current Executive Director > (Barbara) is > doing is clearly more than a full time job. > > In the new model, there is no neat box marked "IETF Executive > Director". > Part of what Barbara's doing goes to the IAD (primary interface with > IESG/IAB to figure out what requirements are), part go with > the contractor > that does the "clerk" contract (managing the support staff), > and part seems > to have no natural home. > > I think that we should stick the BCP at the abstraction level > (who makes > the decision), and not at the assignment level (who does the > job). But I > think that the IESG is not the best body to assign those > tasks (its role is > intended to be mostly technical, not administrative), and I > think it's not > certain they all go to one place. So I would say: > >The IAOC, in consultation with the IAB and the IESG, >will designate the person(s) to carry out the tasks that >other IETF process documents say are carried out by the >IETF Executive Director. > > Does that make sense to people? > > Harald > > --On 26. november 2004 13:43 -0500 scott bradner > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Bert further asks: > >>The IETF Administrative Director (IAD) is not the same function > >>as the IETF Executive Director. The IESG shall select an IETF > >>Executive Director (as defined in xxx, we need to fill out xxx). > >> > >> Does the IETF community can agree with that? > > > > I agree that the IAD and the IETF ED are different > functions and agree > > with the new paragraph > > > > Scott > > > > ___ > > Ietf mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > > > ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director
seems reasonable to me as well. including the recommended change. a. On 29 nov 2004, at 15.07, scott bradner wrote: Harald suggests: The IAOC, in consultation with the IAB and the IESG, will designate the person(s) to carry out the tasks that other IETF process documents say are carried out by the IETF Executive Director. makes sense to me (I would remove the word "other" on the 3rd line though) Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why people by NATs
> > Oh, sorry. Not *exactly*. It's the DHCP *server* which does the DNS > > update. > > My DHCP server is firmware in my Linksys :-). well, since linksys has bundled the ISC DHCP server, perhaps you could ask them to upgrade their bundle to a more recent version, that supports DNS updates. or you could disable the linksys dhcp function and run ISC DHCP on what i'm sure is just one of many fine linux machines on your home net. the point being, there's no new protocol work called for in this thread; all you have to do is use the current features of current protocols, even if you have to change vendors to do it. -- Paul Vixie ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Perspectives on the IETF & Restructuring
Bob, thank you for your input, and apologies for the time that has passed by before this response. --On 9. november 2004 11:18 -0500 Robert Kahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have not been involved in the public discussion of the IETF restructuring on this list so far, other than to make a plea at the most recent IETF plenary in San Diego to consider the various issues that are relevant to making any decisions about future restructuring. However, it would appear that I now need to do so, this being a start, since many of the issues that are so well known to others, have not yet been raised. Some of the issues are straightforward, while others are not. Many can be considered in a public forum; some are best handled between the parties involved. Ill address a few of them below. A general point the IETF is built upon a tradition of open discussion, and on reaching consensus through that open discussion. In some cases, there may be good reasons for parties to discuss privately - but if we reach agreements that critically depend on saying "this is good for you, and we're not telling you why" - I do not think this is a good path. There may well be good reasons for restructuring. The Internet has undergone significant upheavals approximately every ten years or so since its beginnings some thirty years ago. None of these have been without their difficulties, but in the final analysis reasonable outcomes occurred despite fears by many that such would not be the case. The Internet would appear to be in a similar situation today. The nations of the world have discovered the Internet in recent years and have come to understand its importance to them moving forward. Yet, many of them do not understand fully how the net works, or the processes by which it evolves. This is partly an educational issue, and a high priority one at that. The Internet is challenged, more today than ever, to deal with a complex set of issues surrounding its evolution and integration into all aspects of society. Telephony, as well as media of all kinds, are now (or soon will be) supported by the Internet and the integration of information with communications services is accelerating. Many older distinctions make little sense in this new world we have all helped to create, and organizations that have not been involved in the past may now see the need to do so. These organizations have structure, members and some notion of turf, and increasingly the turf looks manifold, resembling a Riemannian surface. The role of the IETF has been critical to the Internets evolutionary process. Yet it should not be taken for granted. Much effort has been spent by many dedicated individuals over many years to make it an effective body. Professional stewardship of this ship of state, as well as oversight of the process in the public interest, will be increasingly important in the future. In this spirit, the following insights are proffered: * The IETF Secretariat was created by CNRI in the late 1980s to help support the IETF as we now know it. For the first ten years or so, the actual work was done by CNRI under a Cooperative Agreement with the US Government. In 1998, the provision of support services was moved to Foretec Seminars, a for-profit company that was formed by CNRI to support seminars, workshops and conferences, and which would provide secretariat services for the IETF under contract to CNRI in much the same fashion that CNRI had provided them in the past. * Since the outset, CNRI has supported the IETF by raising funds, providing some of the support itself, and by providing the financial underpinnings in both good and bad times. The initial PI on this effort was Vint Cerf. Additional note - in the times when the IETF meeting fees were larger than the cost of running the secretariat, this surplus was also handled by CNRI. * CNRI helped to form ISOC and was one of the three charter members of ISOC. CNRI provided funding to help ISOC get started, and after ISOC was incorporated in December 1992, CNRI provided secretariat services to ISOC for several years. * In 1993, CNRI made arrangements for ISOC to move into its own quarters nearby CNRI. This was motivated at the time by a need to provide a physical separation between the IETF Secretariat and the activities of ISOC. * An MOA was developed by CNRI, ISOC, and coordinated with the IAB and IETF Chairs in the 1996 ? 1998 time frame. CNRI understood the MOA to have been agreed upon by the parties, and has been operating within the spirit of it since then. In the interest of informing the community could you provide this document for the historical record? * In recent years, demands on Foretec for IETF services have increased; but there have been no effective means of applying back pressure, i.e. a change management process that addresses cost recovery for additional services. This is an issue that needs to be resolved. As you know from previous discussions - we have somewh
Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director
Harald suggests: The IAOC, in consultation with the IAB and the IESG, will designate the person(s) to carry out the tasks that other IETF process documents say are carried out by the IETF Executive Director. makes sense to me (I would remove the word "other" on the 3rd line though) Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Executive Director
Trying to wrap the ExDir discussion: The IETF process documents have been written with the assumption in a few places that there exists an IETF Executive Director, and that IETF process documents can assign tasks to that person. The things that the process documents mention explicitly are far less than a full time job; the job that the current Executive Director (Barbara) is doing is clearly more than a full time job. In the new model, there is no neat box marked "IETF Executive Director". Part of what Barbara's doing goes to the IAD (primary interface with IESG/IAB to figure out what requirements are), part go with the contractor that does the "clerk" contract (managing the support staff), and part seems to have no natural home. I think that we should stick the BCP at the abstraction level (who makes the decision), and not at the assignment level (who does the job). But I think that the IESG is not the best body to assign those tasks (its role is intended to be mostly technical, not administrative), and I think it's not certain they all go to one place. So I would say: The IAOC, in consultation with the IAB and the IESG, will designate the person(s) to carry out the tasks that other IETF process documents say are carried out by the IETF Executive Director. Does that make sense to people? Harald --On 26. november 2004 13:43 -0500 scott bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bert further asks: The IETF Administrative Director (IAD) is not the same function as the IETF Executive Director. The IESG shall select an IETF Executive Director (as defined in xxx, we need to fill out xxx). Does the IETF community can agree with that? I agree that the IAD and the IETF ED are different functions and agree with the new paragraph Scott ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Iqbal S Ismail/USA/StateStreet is out of the office.
I have suspended his posting rights. Harald --On 26. november 2004 18:01 -0800 Ross Finlayson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Could someone please remove this clown from the "ietf" list, or else update the mailing list's filters, so that his broken email agent doesn't keep bothering us with this garbage? Ross. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: The gaps that NAT is filling
> > The average Internet user (home user or enterprise administrator) > > does not care about the end-to-end principle or the architectural > > purity of the Internet. > > Maybe not the average user, but a pretty large subset *does* > care - because t makes it extremely hard to do what they want... Yes! I think it we should not underestimate the potential demands from and desires of "average users". An average user is not my mom, and maybe not even those of "our" generation. I think an "average user", of those who really wants any kind of Internet access, actually can be found among the younger generations, who consider the Internet and all today's technologies natural parts of daily life. Even if they do not care about the e2e principle, they do care about the potential for doing any kinds of peer2peer communication, as they want to play their networking games, they want to share information, they want to try things, experiment, and be independent of what outsiders provide or want to allow (like access providers). Not all home users are demanding, some just want to surf the web, but in most households there is at least one more demanding user, and that user will be the one setting the access requirements of the household. /L-E ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why people by NATs
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 01:38 -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Oh, sorry. Not *exactly*. It's the DHCP *server* which does the DNS > > update. > > My DHCP server is firmware in my Linksys :-). Which is a Linux box, which can be upgraded ;) http://www.openwrt.org/ http://www.seattlewireless.net/index.cgi/LinksysWrt54g etc... 8<-- dhcp client / server * caching dns server (with hooks to dhcp to lookup dhcp client hostnames -->8 Linksys WRTG's are probably one of the nicest NAT boxes, you can even let them _route_ IPv6, including firewalling ;) (Which reminds me to simply get one so I have a very cheap spare linux box to fool around with, almost cheaper as buying vmware ;) Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
