Re: Comment on draft-iab-ipv6-nat-00

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

 




On 21/03/2009, at 3:18 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

On 19 mrt 2009, at 7:43, Lixia Zhan"

Are we ready to adopt the policy that forbids IPv6 NAT traversal mechanisms?



no.

This industry needs standards, and relies on standards.

For many years the Internet Engineering Task Force has viewed standardization of NATs and their behaviour as being an action that would encourage further deployment of a technology that was apparently considered undesireable. The result has been that NATs have been deployed for reasons entirely unconnected with the IETF and standardization. However, because the original specification of NAT behaviour was at such a general level, each NAT implementor has been forced into making local decisions as to how the NAT should behave under specific circumstances. We now enjoy a network with widespread deployment of an active device that does not have consistent implementations and, in the worst cases, exhibits non-deterministic behaviours. This has made the task of deployment of certain applications on the Internet, including voice-based applications, incredibly difficult.

Whether NATs are good or bad, they’d be less of a collective headache today if they shared a common standard core behaviour. NATs for IPv6 may be felt to be unnecessary today, and it can be argued they represent no real value to an IPv6 site. But a collection of IPv6 NAT implementations with no common core behaviour would be a far worse of problem for applications and their users. Standardization of technology at least eliminates some of the worst aspects of application-level guesswork out of technology deployment.

regards

Geoff

_______________________________________________

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]