Hi
Hadriel,
I believe I'm the AD you are referring to.
I made the comments as a
technical contributor, but also said that my opinion was informed by discussions
within the IESG.
I think your characterization of my comments is a bit incorrect:
"In one of
the working group meetings this past week, when the group was discussing a NAT
traversal solution for their new protocol, an A-D suggested they not spend much
time on NAT traversal. He/she indicated the IESG was discouraging NAT
traversal mechanisms for new protocols, in order to foster demand for IPv6
instead. The A-D further noted that "we really want it to run over IPv6
more than we want it to run over IPv4". After being asked for
clarification he/she said that "if you build something that will encourage
people to stay on IPv4 longer, when you send it into the IESG you will get
pushback".
I never said "the IESG is discouraging NAT traversal
mechanisms for new protocols,"
The
slide being shown differentiated the application from the NAT
traversal mechanism.
If your core protocol (ppsp tracker) ONLY works with a
NAT'd transport (which the slides could be
interpreted to mean), I believe
you will get
pushback.
My advice at the mic was to build the solution in such a way
that it is "transport agile".
I explicitly made the parallel with the security
requirement for algorithm agility.
The application aspects of the solution should not be
dependent on a NAT-specific transport solution.
I said (feel free to check the session recording, (ch3-fri-am
1:25), which is where I got the following text from):
"I want to make sure you do not spend a tremendous
amount of time designing something that works for all kinds of NATs,
because our goal is to get rid of NATs [said with a grin]. It's not everybody's
goal obviously. The IESG wants to see the
migration to IPv6 completed, and one of the things that we are seriously pushing
back on is anything that will help you keep NATs around longer so you can keep
IPv4 around longer, because we believe that's a bad solution to the runout of
IPv4 addressing. We recognize that right now you need to deal with IPv4
networks, so therefore you have to deal with this, but don't build a lot of
assumptions into your core protocol because we really want it to run over IPv6
more than we want it to run over IPv4."
and later "we're trying to get people to go to IPv6. If you
are building something that will encourage people to stay on IPv4 even longer,
when you send this into the IESG you will get pushback."
Maybe my language
was not as well considered as it should have been, but
it is my
understanding that IETF consensus is to have the industry transition from IPv4
to IPv6.
If your core protocol ONLY works with an IPv4 NAT'd transport, I believe
you will get pushback.
The solution should also be able to work in other
environments, such as an un-NAT'd IPv6
environment.
David Harrington
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi,
In one of the working group meetings this past week, when the group was discussing a NAT traversal solution for their new protocol, an A-D suggested they not spend much time on NAT traversal. He/she indicated the IESG was discouraging NAT traversal mechanisms for new protocols, in order to foster demand for IPv6 instead. The A-D further noted that "we really want it to run over IPv6 more than we want it to run over IPv4". After being asked for clarification he/she said that "if you build something that will encourage people to stay on IPv4 longer, when you send it into the IESG you will get pushback".
I am not going to name the WG nor A-D, because I'd rather encourage A-D's to speak their mind, and it doesn't matter who it was. Also, anyone can make a mistake or be mis-interpreted, and perhaps that's all this was. (We don't read written prepared statements at the mic, after all :)
What I'd like to know is the IESG's position with respect to protocols trying to make themselves work around NATs in IPv4. I'd like to know if the IESG will push back on new protocols if they attempt to work around NATs.
I would also like to understand the IESG's position with respect to IPv6 and whether protocols should not attempt to make themselves work around potential IPv6 NATs; and more importantly to handle the possibility that the firewall-type policies which NATs have by nature, may continue to be used in IPv6 on purpose even if addresses/ports don't get mapped.
I appreciate the workload you are always under, but I think it's important for us outside the IESG to know. If this is not the right medium/process for asking such questions, my apologies... and please let me know the right way. :)
Thanks,
-hadriel
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf