Again, there needs to be an expectations reset here.
The pro-NAT faction are not 'asking' for anything. They are serving notice that this is the approach that they intend to take.
You are saying, 'you can beg for your NAT but I am not giving it to you, now go away'. They are saying, 'I do not recognize your asserted veto power'.
Not many folk realize that when the comment was made about rough consensus and running code was made it was not a compliment, it was an observation that the IETF process is frequently pre-empted by unilateral decisions. Rough consensus does not have to mean a majority. In the past it has frequently meant a cabal that had a consensus amongst themselves and just decided they were going to do something.
If your idea of a representative 'application' program is SSH you are certainly not an application programmer. SSH is a tool that is almost exclusively used by network and system admins and programmers. Being robust in the face of network instability is a major functional requirement when you are debugging a network.
Application programmers in general have zero interest in the design, coding and testing effort necessary to work in a network with arbitrary administrative renumbering. End users are going to demand a reliable network rather than allow their network to be subjected to unnecessary instability because some IETF faction thinks that keeping the network address constant from end to end is more important.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of Tony Hain
Sent: Wed 11/26/2008 6:16 PM
To: 'David Morris'
Cc: 'IETF Discussion'
Subject: RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers
David Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >
> > If your OS requires a reboot when you renumber get a real OS.
> > If your apps require that they restart when you renumber get
> > your apps fixed.
>
> I fail to understand how an app such as ssh can maintain a secure
> connection in the face of renumbering.
That is probably because you appear to have failed to read the top half of
that post. An external ssh session will break during renumbering, no matter
what nat capability might exist, so the only thing worth discussing is an
internal one. Deploying a ULA prefix alongside whatever external one might
exist will allow the internal ssh to persist forever while the external
prefix is changed on a minute by minute basis.
> Yet many of my ssh sessions are
> active for days or weeks quite happily and their existance represents
> my
> mid term memory about what I'm working on.
Clearly none of those are external, or there is no actual renumbering going
on.
>
> Creating a new connection represents a restart from my perspective.
> Some
> amount of my activity is lost and if I don't directly control when the
> renumbering happens, it can be at a very in-opportune time in terms of
> my
> productivity.
No argument about the impact, but you have not demonstrated a need for 66nat
beyond wanting it so that nothing changes except the size of the address.
This will not be true on a number of fronts, so perpetuating an
architectural impediment in a futile attempt to avoid reality is not a
reasonable argument.
Vendors will build what you say you want to buy, so don't box yourself in by
insisting on perpetuating the past without trying to move beyond it first...
Tony
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf