RE: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance (beha ve) (fwd)

Eric Burger <eburger@brooktrout.com> Mon, 27 September 2004 16:44 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11773; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:44:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CByk0-0000xS-Ov; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:52:45 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CByRQ-0004Vi-AS; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:33:32 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CByL8-0003k8-FP for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:27:02 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10909 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:26:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from salvelinus.brooktrout.com ([204.176.205.6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CBySn-0000hI-0o for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:34:57 -0400
Received: from nhmail2.needham.brooktrout.com (nhmail2.eng.brooktrout.com [204.176.205.242]) by salvelinus.brooktrout.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i8RGKokT004540; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:21:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by nhmail2.eng.brooktrout.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <PQMP35GP>; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:18:14 -0400
Message-ID: <EDD694D47377D7119C8400D0B77FD331A33C9E@nhmail2.eng.brooktrout.com>
From: Eric Burger <eburger@brooktrout.com>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:18:12 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d0bdc596f8dd1c226c458f0b4df27a88
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance (beha ve) (fwd)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac

Let's not forget: it takes an average of over 2 years to publish an RFC.

If the market explodes in the next 2 years, we will have significantly
missed the chance to influence the industry.

Unless, of course, the expectation is that the NAT business will *continue*
to expand in the 2-4 year time horizon.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 8:29 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter; Pekka Savola
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: 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
> 

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