IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: IESG position on NAT traversal and IPv4/IPv6

"Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com> Thu, 18 November 2010 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <dworley@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A57DA3A68AC for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:46:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.453
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.453 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.146, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1NYObJ0coNgL for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:46:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A22E3A68BF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:46:47 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAHID5UzGmAcF/2dsb2JhbACiVnGmKQKZK4VLBIRaiSY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,218,1288584000"; d="scan'208";a="219248514"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2010 13:47:33 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,218,1288584000"; d="scan'208";a="542166049"
Received: from dc-us1hcex2.us1.avaya.com (HELO DC-US1HCEX2.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.21]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2010 13:47:33 -0500
Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.1.90]) by DC-US1HCEX2.global.avaya.com ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:47:32 -0500
From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com>
To: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, 'Hadriel Kaplan' <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:47:32 -0500
Subject: RE: IESG position on NAT traversal and IPv4/IPv6
Thread-Topic: IESG position on NAT traversal and IPv4/IPv6
Thread-Index: AcuEiz7aH0SSAXEpTP+a5Z3yV1YT/gAMoD2AAKScEXw=
Message-ID: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B2202288A2F@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
References: <F443844F-67B6-418F-9E32-B2F498686650@acmepacket.com> <AANLkTimnQo=gAXa3FQWWfTp004t-Uv_RDzgOd=30Q49b@mail.gmail.com>, <964D24B7092B4686A29005ACBBBCE6C4@23FX1C1>
In-Reply-To: <964D24B7092B4686A29005ACBBBCE6C4@23FX1C1>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:46:48 -0000

From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington [ietfdbh@comcast.net]
> I said (feel free to check the session recording, (ch3-fri-am 1:25),
> which is where I got the following text from):
> 
> "I want to make sure you do not spend a tremendous amount of time
> designing something that works for all kinds of NATs, because our goal
> is to get rid of NATs [said with a grin]. It's not everybody's goal
> obviously. The IESG wants to see the migration to IPv6 completed, and
> one of the things that we are seriously pushing back on is anything
> that will help you keep NATs around longer so you can keep IPv4 around
> longer, because we believe that's a bad solution to the runout of IPv4
> addressing. We recognize that right now you need to deal with IPv4
> networks, so therefore you have to deal with this, but don't build a
> lot of assumptions into your core protocol because we really want it
> to run over IPv6 more than we want it to run over IPv4."

To my ear, that sounds a lot like what Hadriel said.  Certainly "one
of the things that we are seriously pushing back on is anything that
will help you keep NATs around longer" sounds to me like
discouragement of any comprehenaive (or even effective) NAT traversal
mechanism.

> and later "we're trying to get people to go to IPv6. If you are
> building something that will encourage people to stay on IPv4 even
> longer, when you send this into the IESG you will get pushback."
> 
> Maybe my language was not as well considered as it should have been,
> but it is my understanding that IETF consensus is to have the industry
> transition from IPv4 to IPv6.

Certainly the IETF *consensus* is to have the industry transition from
IPv4 to IPv6.  But just as firmly, the IETF *realization* is that IPv4
will be around for another decade or more, with NATs, and if we want
our protocols to be used, we're going to have to deal with it.  I'm
sure that if the IETF does not provide ongoing IPv4 support, Microsoft
will do so...

Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email