RE: NAT support and laws for the lawless

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>]

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> Ah assume that we solve the problem by merely replacing the
> entire Internet
> routing infrastructure.

Not replacing, leveraging it as a layer-2 substrate.

>
> How about we face reality and assume IPv4 will outlive us all
> whether or not
> IPv6 is ever deployed.

I didn't say IPv4 would go away, in fact the argument counts on it being
there until the ISPs decide that routing IPv6 packets is in their best
interest. The argument is that there is no need for this group to figure
out how to traverse NATs. IPsec works well end-to-end. We know the IPv4
environment doesn't provide that, and the IPv6 environment does.

>
> The title of this thread implies that people believe that the
> IETF sets laws
> and has a right of veto over net use. The IETF is no
> difference in principle
> to any other open source type project, people can and do fork
> the code tree.

I didn't even read the subject until you pointed it out, but the point
is not about what authority the IETF has over use of its writings. The
point is that the IETF is in control of the focus of the WGs and how
much time they spend trying to define duplicate solutions. Since the
problem being solved is 'below' the space IPsec should be worried about,
the WGs responsible for those lower layer issues should be doing the
work. If nothing was in process that could solve the problem, or a
willing WG could not be found, it is much more reasonable for this WG to
take on the work. In this case the problem is being addressed, so this
WG should drop it and get back to a valuable use of its time.

Tony

>
> This is not about the morality of NAT, after all if
> electricity is created
> by eletrons that means that morality is created by morons.
>
>
> 	Phill
>
>
>
>
>