On 2010-10-07 13:57, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 06/10/2010 05:40 p.m., Keith Moore wrote:
>
>>>> It's perfectly reasonable for applications to include IP
>>>> addresses and port numbers in their payloads, as this is the only
>>>> way that the Internet Architecture defines to allow applications
>>>> to make contact with particular processes at particular hosts.
>>>> Some might see this as a deficiency in the Internet Architecture,
>>>> but that's the best that we have to work with for now.
>>> If anything, the fact that "this is is the only way that the
>>> Internet Architecture defines..." doesn't make it reasonable.
>> So basically you're arguing to impair the ability of applications to
>> function, just so that network operators can futz around with
>> addresses.
>
> No. I'm arguing that you should not blame NATs for broken application
> designs, and that you should not assess reasonable-ness based on
> existing (and questionable) application designs.
The problem is that the creation of disjoint addressing realms
(due to NAT and to IPv4/IPv6 coexistence) has made distributed
application design almost impossible without kludges.
See draft-carpenter-referral-ps-01
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf