Re: IESG position on NAT traversal and IPv4/IPv6

Hi Hadriel,

note that you do not really need to use the he/she convetion to hide the
identity of that AD because all the current ADs are male :o)

In any case, I think I made my *personal* position pretty clear in the
BFCP over UDP discussion we had in the DISPATCH session. NAT traversal
is an essential feature if we want to deploy some of our technologies in
certain scenarios... and we need to make sure our technologies are
deployable. Technologies that are not deployable in the real world
become irrelevant pretty soon.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 15/11/2010 7:19 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> Hi,
> In one of the working group meetings this past week, when the group was discussing a NAT traversal solution for their new protocol, an A-D suggested they not spend much time on NAT traversal.  He/she indicated the IESG was discouraging NAT traversal mechanisms for new protocols, in order to foster demand for IPv6 instead.  The A-D further noted that "we really want it to run over IPv6 more than we want it to run over IPv4".  After being asked for clarification he/she said that "if you build something that will encourage people to stay on IPv4 longer, when you send it into the IESG you will get pushback".
> 
> I am not going to name the WG nor A-D, because I'd rather encourage A-D's to speak their mind, and it doesn't matter who it was.  Also, anyone can make a mistake or be mis-interpreted, and perhaps that's all this was. (We don't read written prepared statements at the mic, after all :)
> 
> What I'd like to know is the IESG's position with respect to protocols trying to make themselves work around NATs in IPv4.  I'd like to know if the IESG will push back on new protocols if they attempt to work around NATs.
> 
> I would also like to understand the IESG's position with respect to IPv6 and whether protocols should not attempt to make themselves work around potential IPv6 NATs; and more importantly to handle the possibility that the firewall-type policies which NATs have by nature, may continue to be used in IPv6 on purpose even if addresses/ports don't get mapped.
> 
> I appreciate the workload you are always under, but I think it's important for us outside the IESG to know.  If this is not the right medium/process for asking such questions, my apologies... and please let me know the right way. :)
> 
> Thanks,
> -hadriel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 