Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com> writes:
> So just saying that NAT is here get used to it is,
> architecturally, not helpful. The split of effort
> is to put it mildly a huge drain on engineering
> talent, but more importantly the net is becoming
> more and more incomprehensible because of it, both
> intellectually as well as operationally. That
> strikes me as a profound architectural issue, one
> that should scare anybody who cares about the net.
>
> So yes, to my mind saying "get used to it" is a
> weird position because it discounts the problems
> of the status quo and doesn't really express any
> vision for what the architecture *ought* to be, or
> drive us in a direction which will make that
> determination possible. What NAT's are telling us
> is that there are requirements that aren't being
> met with the current Internet. But that's really
> the only thing they should be telling us because
> we already know that NAT's fail miserably on other
> requirements. We want an architecture that meets
> all of the requirements, not a hodgepodge of half
> solutions which fall over in the first stiff
> breeze.
I can agree with most of this, but I don't think that it's
incompatible with "get used to it". Look at it this way: I'm used to
the fact that I'm bald, even though I don't like it. At some point
there may be something I can do about that and at that point I would
do it. In the meantime, I wear a hat.
-Ekr
--
[Eric Rescorla ekr@rtfm.com]
http://www.rtfm.com/