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

Pekka Savola <> Tue, 21 September 2004 11:06 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA03888; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:06:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9ia9-0000DM-3v; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:13:13 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9iME-0002cd-RG; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:58:50 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9iJS-0001zQ-V0 for; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:55:59 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA03351 for <>; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:55:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9iPk-0008Ui-7a for; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:02:32 -0400
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8LAtAS02081; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:55:10 +0300
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:55:10 +0300
From: Pekka Savola <>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69
Cc: Michael Richardson <>,
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: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465

(Removed Cc: iesg)

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> --On mandag, september 20, 2004 14:38:51 -0400 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?
> Given that I'm one of them, and will continue to be one until the IPv4 
> Internet fades to where I can ignore it.... yes.

The point is not whether the users behind an IPv4 NAT are happy or 

The point is which kind of applications you can reasonably expect to 
deploy behind an IPv4 NAT, and be happy.

I agree with Harald that v4 NATs are going to be here a decade from 
now.  But that's irrelevant, if those people using the NAT only use 
simple client-server applications.

What matters is the peer-to-peer, etc. applications which typically 
require solutions like STUN, TURN, Teredo, etc.

My argument is that we can simplify the architecture significantly if 
we can assume that v4 NAT can be treversed using one particular 
mechanism (e.g., Teredo), and all the applications which have a more 
complex model than just client-server are just recommended to use IPv6 

If we can provide a reasonably working IPv6 connectivity solution(s),
we wouldn't have to try to figure out how to make NATs behave better,
how to build robust applications to work with these nicely or badly
behaving NATs, etc.

Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

Ietf mailing list