Tony Hain wrote:
Why are we wasting effort in every WG and research area on NAT traversal crap???
FWIW I'm also concerned that we are doing too many different NAT traversal protocols. It should be sufficient to just define how IPv6 is tunneled across NATs and start using more IPv6 in the applications.
On another topic, why is it that the API is so sacred that we will create a massive array of complex approaches to avoid defining a real session layer. We put imitation session efforts at layer 4 (SCTP), layer 3.5 (HIP), layer 3.25 (shim), and the TRILL crap is trying to do it at layer 2.5.
I don't understand what makes you think TRILL is trying to do a session layer. If it does, then any other routing and tunneling approach should also be given the same verdict.
Erik
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf