RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to application developers

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

 



This is not anti-nat religion. There are costs that every application
developer has to absorb to deal with topology warts, and the people that are
focused on their little part of the problem space refuse to acknowledge
those costs. They also refuse to recognize the fact that these costs are
multiplied many times over due to the breadth of the application development
space. In terms of the overall costs to the system, squeezing a cost out of
the core forces a much larger cost spread all around the edges. 

The fundamental problem here is that the voices of those bearing the costs
in the core are being represented, while the voices of those doing
application development are not being heard. 

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: behave-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:behave-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Fred Baker
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 10:08 PM
> To: alh-ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: behave@xxxxxxxx WG; IAB; IETF Discussion; IESG IESG
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to
> application developers
> 
> 
> On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
> 
> > The discussion today in Behave shows there is very strong peer-
> > pressure group-think with no serious analysis of the long term
> > implications about what is being discussed.
> 
> Yes, there is a very clear anti-NAT religion that drives a lot of
> thought. It's not clear that any other opinion is tolerated.
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> Behave@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

_______________________________________________

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

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