David Conrad wrote: > Tony, > > On Nov 25, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Tony Hain wrote: >> Either way the app developers will have to rely on topology >> awareness crutches to deal with the resulting nonsense. > > Stuff they presumably already have to deal with because they'd like > their applications to be used in the real (IPv4+NAT) world... Yeah, but we're trying to get rid of that stuff, or at least considerably reduce the cost and complexity, because (among other things) it presents a huge barrier to adoption of new multiparty apps. >> A reasonable standards development effort would not blindly endorse >> something known to be detrimental, > > Standards development effort != endorsement. According to RFC 2026, IETF standardization is a kind of an endorsement, because it's a statement of both protocol quality and community consensus. > The architecture is _ALREADY_ broken. 66NAT is merely another symptom > of the underlying disease. Just because a disease exists does not mean we have to encourage its spread. The only reason for IETF to standardize some kind of 66NAT is to significantly improve the situation over what would happen in the absence of standardization. There are several ways that we could probably do that. But one of them is NOT to standardize NATs like they exist in IPv4. We already know that that sucks really badly, and it would never meet the criteria defined in RFC 2026. Nor would it achieve community consensus. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf