Who said anything about necessary state and reasonable timeouts? I've
seen more than one brand of consumer-grade box with NAT features that
could not be turned off, and that even in their most permissive settings
kill ssh sessions after an hour or two whether the ssh sessions had
been active or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> "Vernon" == Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Vernon> Perhaps more NAT RFCs would help; they couldn't hurt much.
Vernon> They'd be a lot of work and would certainly be ignored by
Vernon> many people who consider themselves designers.
> From: Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Well my house was behind 2 levels of NAT until last week.
> > Once i got rid of one level (the one I don't control), some of my
> > operational problems with keeping SSH sessions up simply went away
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> > The point is which kind of applications you can reasonably expect to
> > deploy behind an IPv4 NAT, and be happy.
> >
> > I agree with Harald that v4 NATs are going to be here a decade from
> > now. But that's irrelevant, if those people usin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I agree with Harald that v4 NATs are going to be here a decade
>> from now. But that's irrelevant, if those people using the NAT
>> only use simple client-server applications.
--On tirsdag, september 21, 2004 13:55:10 +0300 Pekka Savola
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Removed Cc: iesg)
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On mandag, september 20, 2004 14:38:51 -0400 Michael Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Harald> And - here I am making a real
(Removed Cc: iesg)
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> --On mandag, september 20, 2004 14:38:51 -0400 Michael Richardson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Harald> And - here I am making a real leap of faith - if the IETF
> > Harald> recommendations for NAT devices make ma
inline.
Michael Richardson wrote:
I agree with Melinda.
I would very much like to be able to let the desk clerk at the hotel
know that I won't be paying for their "Internet" service, because it
wasn't RFC compliant. (I now wish that someone did get the trademark
on that word, and would deny it
--On Monday, 20 September, 2004 21:38 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Do we really want customers of NAT devices to be happy?
>
> Given that I'm one of them, and will continue to be one until
> the IPv4 Internet fades to where I can ignore it yes.
Harald, let
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I agree with Melinda.
I would very much like to be able to let the desk clerk at the hotel
know that I won't be paying for their "Internet" service, because it
wasn't RFC compliant. (I now wish that someone did get the trademark
on that word, and would deny
On Monday, September 20, 2004, at 06:09 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
I think this ship has left port a long time ago and the likelihood
that the IETF can now effect enough change to make it possible to
write new applications that work consistently in the presence of NATs
is very low. The installed ba
Harald,
My take (which is obviously biased) is that the number of NAT devices 2
years from now is likely to be significantly larger than the number of NAT
devices currently deployed.
And - here I am making a real leap of faith - if the IETF recommendations
for NAT devices make manufacturers who
--On mandag, september 20, 2004 14:38:51 -0400 Michael Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Harald> And - here I am making a real leap of faith - if the IETF
Harald> recommendations for NAT devices make manufacturers who
Harald> listen to them create NAT devices that make their cust
inline.
Michael Richardson wrote:
Harald> And - here I am making a real leap of faith - if the IETF
Harald> recommendations for NAT devices make manufacturers who
Harald> listen to them create NAT devices that make their customers
Harald> more happy, then many of these new NAT devic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> My take (which is obviously biased) is that the number of
Harald> NAT devices 2 years from now is likely to be significantly
Harald> larger than the number of NAT devices c
--On 20. september 2004 14:03 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I think the real point is that it's quite unrealistic at this
stage in the history of NAT to imagine that we can make the mess
(which was inevitable anyway) any better by codifying the
least-bad form of NAT behaviou
I think the real point is that it's quite unrealistic at this
stage in the history of NAT to imagine that we can make the mess
(which was inevitable anyway) any better by codifying the
least-bad form of NAT behaviour. The NAT codes are shipped, burnt
into lots of devices, and the IETF can't do much
[[ Resending the comment to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] illegitimately *) automatically
rejects the posts by non-subscribers.
*) http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/mail-submit-policy.txt
]]
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, The IESG wrote:
> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Transp
18 matches
Mail list logo
