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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 11/08/2015 02:25 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     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.
> 
> Nope. Those protocols aren't broken, they worked fine for years until
> NAT arrived and broke them. 

Not-so-clean design (so to speak :-) ) that showed up as a result of
NATs.  Sending addresses in the app protocol is a bad idea. For multiple
reasons.


> They still work fine on networks that
> operate the way the Internet was originally designed with end-to-end
> connectivity.

not sure what you mean by "end-to-end" connectivity.

But if you refer to the property where there is no filtering between the
aforementioned two devices, I wonder how many of such networks are
interconnected via the public Internet.

  ... that train has left ages ago.


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492