Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

On 06/11/2015 00:20, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> It breaks any application that requires that the application know its
> source address. Examples are SIP, FTP, audio/video chat, etc.
your argument is the wrong way around: some protocols deliberately
introduce layering violations by demanding that transport identifier
information is encoded at the application layer.  Transport identifier
translation merely shows up this brokenness.  The brokenness is not with
the translation mechanism but with the higher level protocols.

You could argue that this is an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin style argument
and that it doesn't matter which bit is broken because at the end of the
day, breakage happens and users get hurt.  The point is that is IETF
working groups like to get up on their collective high horses about
identifier translation but apparently don't bat an eyelid when people
create entirely new protocols with glaring layering violations.

I'd happy to see disapproval notices for NPTv6 appearing in this draft if
the IETF first issues explicit recommendations against using SIP, FTP,
audio/video chat and all other protocols which mandate layering violations.

I.e. at least the IETF should be even handed about this and not pretend
that the root cause of the problem is somewhere where in fact it isn't.

Nick