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

--On 20. september 2004 14:03 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> 
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 behaviour. The NAT codes are shipped, burnt
> into lots of devices, and the IETF can't do much about it.
> So I think this would be wasted effort.

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 listen to them create NAT devices 
that make their customers more happy, then many of these new NAT devices 
may  be conformant to IETF recommendations.

If we're really, really lucky - and reasonably fast - we could make the 
experience of people using the Internet better - "make the Internet work 
better" for those users.
And that's what the IETF is supposed to do, isn't it?

(Note - I sympathize with Pekka's touching faith in Teredo as the Big 
Solution.... I hope he's right. So the NAT recommendations may in that case 
boil down to a single sentence:

"Don't break Teredo"

If that's the case.... it's worth saying.)

                 Harald

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf