Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance (behave) (fwd)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 21 September 2004 02:30 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 WAA17505; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:30:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9aX4-0000JZ-Mv; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:37:30 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9aP1-0007kb-I5; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:29:11 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9aKu-0006iH-K6; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:24:56 -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 WAA17190; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:24:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9aRB-0000DS-6U; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:31:26 -0400
Received: from [209.187.148.215] (helo=scan.jck.com) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C9aKp-000LH5-S2; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:24:51 -0400
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:24:51 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>, iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <936CCF554FA0DE0E7DB6D470@scan.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D335B8F20E6A6FD4CF2CE18@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409200834140.22679-100000@netcore.fi> <414EC71C.6030109@zurich.ibm.com> <239B699D32BD4A0F33F883AB@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <4924.1095705531@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> <8D335B8F20E6A6FD4CF2CE18@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
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-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: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--On Monday, 20 September, 2004 21:38 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: >> 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. Harald, let me make an observation that I made a few weeks ago that that, to my astonishment, actually made Latif happy. In your case, this is just a guess, but you are probably behind a NAT for two reasons (Melinda's observation about increasing corporate policies might well be a third). One is the perceived shortage of IPv4 space. Whether that perception is real, or is a marketing mechanism by ISPs who would prefer to sell you something more expensive, or is just a delusion is irrelevant for this purpose. The point is that you are behind a NAT, in part, because no one has given you enough IPv4 space. The second is that, if I'm a vendor of cheap "cable/ DSL routers", I've got to love NATs. My device gets one address from the ISP. Every single clueless customer of the device has the same address space, the same netmask, etc. It is a customer support dream because no one calls up and asks unique questions about address ranges, funny masks, trick routing between addresses on both sides of the router, and so on. Until and unless we have arrangements for IPv6 that use public address space but * can be built into cheap products, and * don't impose any greater customer support costs on those vendors, or the ISPs whose customers patronize them, then the current devices do, I think it is safe to predict that IPv6 will not reduce the NAT frequency for SOHO situations one bit. I hate that conclusion but I fear it is realistic. To a certain extent, we are _causing_ NATs, especially in IPv6 environments. Now, is it worthwhile, given that, to allocate resources into this proposed WG or should the resources be put into tidying up the edges of IPv6 configuration? I don't know, but I strongly suspect that the people who are likely to do the work are different. And, if they are, this is probably a good idea, however distasteful some of us find it. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… Pekka Savola
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… Michael Richardson
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… Bob Hinden
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… Melinda Shore
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… Michael Richardson
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… John C Klensin
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… Pekka Savola
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… Michael Richardson
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… Pekka Savola
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… Vernon Schryver
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… Michael Richardson
- Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance… Leif Johansson