Re: I-D Action:draft-rosenberg-internet-waist-hourglass-00.txt]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>> Mind you, I'm not saying that protocols should always use a UDP
>> shim layer. But I think the tradeoffs in favor of doing so are a bit 
>> stronger
>> than you seem to think.
> 
> This is my chance to act the naif for Valentine's Day, but ...
> 
> I agree that UDP shims improve your ability to get through a NAT in the 
> short term. However (and especially given Melinda pointing out that NATs 
> impede connectivity for technical reasons, but firewalls impede connectivity 
> for policy reasons), we need to recognize that this is an arms race.

Thats why you need to separate it.

Running ontop of UDP and TCP means that your protocol can function 
through a NAT which exists for the purpose of NAT, regardless of 
firewall and administrative policy. And it means its in a format that 
your firewall vendor COULD manage policy for. It removes the TECHNICAL 
barriers to working on the Internet, leaving just the POLICY barriers.

Now, that doesn't address the problem of how we do a better job of 
managing those policy barriers. But one step at a time.

-Jonathan R.



-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   499 Thornall St.
Cisco Fellow                                   Edison, NJ 08837
Cisco, Voice Technology Group
jdrosen@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (408) 902-3084
http://www.cisco.com
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]