Hi Noel, On 30.07.2013 15:23, Noel Chiappa wrote: > I hear you, but... this is not a simple problem. Yes, and I wasn't expecting it to be simple... > I think we need to start by understanding what drives the creation and > deployment of these devices. I think the answer to that has to be that some > people have needs that aren't being met by the IETF, and so there's an > opportunity for private entities to create and sell 'solutions'. Agree, that would be one possible action... > The IETF doesn't have a police force, or any enforcement mechanism. If we're Yep, that's true and I'm fully aware of it. > going to head off these boxes, the only tool we have to do that is to build > better mousetraps - i.e. design stuff that does what people want, is more > cost-effective, and is better than these local 'point deployment' boxes. ... NAT ... > is both ugly _and_ brittle [because it's not part of an architected _system_], > difficult to work with because it [mostly] lacks any external control > interface, etc.) That is a little bit more along my direction. Maybe we can at least give advice what to strictly avoid and how to leave a path open for innovation, e.g., do expect that other transport protocols may exist in the future, so do not assume that only TCP and UDP are in use, or: be prepared to process/bypass extension headers etc. > So, sorry, I don't have a simple solution to what I concede is a real problem. > But it's a complicated problem -> no simple solution. I wasn't expecting that. :-) Regards, Roland