Could we agree on a consensus point that:
'Any application developer who designs a protocol on the assumption it will not be subject to NAT66 may be disappointed'
I think that it is beyond rational argument to claim otherwise. Furthermore, if it is really the interests of application layer protocol designers that are being considered here, then why am I reading so many posts from network layer folk telling me what my problems are?
HTTP was originally designed to run just fine over OSI and DECNET. In fact I have deployed HTTP over DECNETv4. The fact that it runs just fine over past protocols is one of the reasons that NAT works and why HTTP works just fine over IPv6.
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of Fred Baker
Sent: Sat 11/22/2008 12:07 AM
To: alh-ietf@xxxxxxxx
Cc: behave@xxxxxxxx WG; IAB; IETF Discussion; IESG IESG
Subject: Re: Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
Sent: Sat 11/22/2008 12:07 AM
To: alh-ietf@xxxxxxxx
Cc: behave@xxxxxxxx WG; IAB; IETF Discussion; IESG IESG
Subject: Re: Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
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.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf