Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance (behave) (fwd)

Jonathan Rosenberg <> Mon, 20 September 2004 19:52 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06132; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:52:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9UJH-0005cM-7V; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:58:51 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9U4x-000688-2F; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:44:03 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9Tt8-0003Ke-Dm; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:31:50 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04550; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:31:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9TzK-0005Fl-Is; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:38:16 -0400
Received: from ([]) by (8.12.8/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i8KJVUpl009292; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:31:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:31:09 -0400
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <>
Organization: dynamicsoft
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Richardson <>
References: <> <> <239B699D32BD4A0F33F883AB@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance (behave) (fwd)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


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 devices may be
>     Harald> conformant to IETF recommendations.
>   Do we really want customers of NAT devices to be happy?

I think we want to enable an Internet that works and serves the needs of 
its users. We are still going to be seeing IPv4 on the network for a 
while still, and I believe it is worth our time to make sure that new 
applications can more easily be built for that network.

During the BoF session, there were folks from many of the major vendors 
of such devices, and those folks said that they felt that the IETF 
recommendations on NAT behavior stood a good chance of being implemented.

>     Harald> (Note - I sympathize with Pekka's touching faith in Teredo
>     Harald> as the Big Solution.... I hope he's right. So the NAT
>     Harald> recommendations may in that case boil down to a single
>     Harald> sentence:
>     Harald> "Don't break Teredo"
>     Harald> If that's the case.... it's worth saying.)
>   I don't think we need a working group to say this.
>   I think that the IAB could write a document much easier that said
> that.

I think the work to be done is far more complicated than just saying 
"don't break teredo". There is a lot of variability in NAT treatment of 
fundamental IP protocols - UDP, TCP, etc. Nailing down these 
variabilities can make applications more robust, more secure, and easier 
to design and deploy - a goal I think we all share.

-Jonathan R.

Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000

Ietf mailing list