On May 18, 2006, at 7:44 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
If we change this to "address independent", close to 100% of NATs
produced will be non behave compliant. At this point applications
will have nothing they can rely on and we will be at the same
point we are now and the BEHAVE WG will have been reduce to an
irrelevant waste of time.
what's the point of this exercise?
To try and minimize the damage NATs cause - clearly if NATs all acted
like a peice of cat 5 cable, that would be optimial from some points
of view but this is not likely to happen. So it was a balance to
define something that was extremely useful for applications (more on
that later) and yet close enough to what NATs do that some, and
hopefully most, NAT vendors will do it.
to encourage predictable behavior that applications cannot use?
The functionaly here defined here allow two hosts behind two differnt
NATs to be able to set up a dirrect flow of packets between them.
They need an external STUN server in the public space to help them
with this but they don't need to realy all the packets through a
server. The two hosts use some server that is not NATed to help set
up the connection, but once the connection is up, there is real e2e
flow of packets and the packets don't have to be relayed by some
public server. Clearly this is not as nice for applications as no
NAT, but short of no NAT, this is really useful and helps provide the
scaleabilyt and reliabilyt that would be achievable in a system with
no NATs. VoIP, IM, and online games can all take advantage of this -
and using ICE they can do it in a way that provides a smoth
transition to v6 or envirnoments with no NATs. I think the behavior
defined here is useful for applications.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf