RE : [midcom] More on new work item

Jonathan Rosenberg, you raised a good point.

There are however some ISPs that are deploying NAT/Firewall (i.e. China,
Europe, Africa). In such case, DHCP might be useful. The ISP might do some
load balancing. Thus, DHCP method will provide a mean for the ISP to
configure dynamically third-end party devices. As for the security
information, this might be entered by the user to the third-end party device
(ex: same id/password as for the ADSL authentication).

...J

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : midcom-admin@ietf.org [mailto:midcom-admin@ietf.org] De
> la part de Jonathan Rosenberg
> Envoyé : 26 avril, 2004 16:47
> À : Melinda Shore
> Cc : midcom@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [midcom] More on new work item
>
>
> I'm not sure we should take on these work items. My concerns
> are mostly
> practical.
>
> I think we agree that DHCP applicability is only in very,
> very limited
> topologies - only in simple stub networks where an end user
> client would
> normally directly talk to a nat. This would really be limited to
> consumers with home nats, or to enterprises. I think its
> unlikely that
> an enterprise would actually allow end clients to control the
> nat, due
> to the serious potential for abuse (imagine a virus infecting a PC,
> causing it to ask the middlebox to open all ports to all
> addresses). As
> such, I dont think this is workable in enterprise.
>
> That leaves home NAT. However, do we think that manufacturers of such
> devices are likely to support midcom? I'd like to hear from
> one on this
> list. If not, this work item would be useful only in theory. Even if
> they did, how would we expect the clients to be configured with the
> security credentials needed to exercise midcom control over
> their nat?
> If such information is manually configured into the client, why can't
> you manually configure the IP of the home NAT as well?
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan R.
>
> Melinda Shore wrote:
>
> > There's been no feedback on the proposed charter change, which
> > concerns me.  I hope that people will speak up regardless
> of whether
> > they think the proposed work item is a good idea or a bad idea.
> >
> > I don't think getting the work done would be an issue - there are
> > always people willing to author documents.  However,
> getting people to
> > *review* documents is far more difficult, and I don't think we can
> > allow work to go forward if we don't have a reasonable expectation
> > that people with subject area expertise - in this case, the midcom
> > working group - are willing to take the time to provide
> expert review
> > as the document is progressed.  I don't want to make any
> assumptions
> > about what the lack of feedback means, so even a simple
> "yes" or "no"
> > on the proposed work item would be much appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Melinda
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > midcom mailing list
> > midcom@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
> >
>
> --
> Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
> Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
> dynamicsoft
> jdrosen@dynamicsoft.com                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
> http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
> http://www.dynamicsoft.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> midcom mailing list
> midcom@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
>
>

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