Subject: Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:04:29 -0500

> From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>

    > If this group takes the attitude that NATs are inherently broken and
    > that there's really no way to fix them in the long term without phasing
    > out the NAT part, it's much more likely to produce something useful
    > than if it tries to find a way to incorporate NATs into the mainstream
    > architecture of the Internet. 

Keith, why don't you start an NAT-Haters mailing list, and take all this
disgust with NAT's there? (I'm quite serious about this.)

You seem to be having problems accepting that fact that NAT's are selling
several orders of magnitudes (I'd guess at least 3, but it's probably more)
more units than your preferred alternative. Most people would regard this as
a sign that the world has decided, and move on.

When life gives you lemons, you have to make lemonade. NAT's are a fact of
life, and we will, indeed, have to find some way of incorporating them into
the mainstream architecture of the Internet. This is a subject on which I have
pondered a lot, for several years - maybe you should wrestle with it too.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:18:14 -0500

> disgust with NAT's there? (I'm quite serious about this.)

Noel, 

I expressed an opinion that this group should confine itself to addressing
short-term goals rather than trying to make NATs a part of the Internet
architecture.  

I said this because I've looked at the problem quite extensively.
The more I have done so, the more have concluded that there's no way 
to restore the valuable functionality that NATs have removed from the 
Internet without providing another global address space, and that it's 
much more efficient and less painful to embellish the NATs to become 
IPv6 routers than it is to embellish both the NATs and applications to 
support a segmented address space.  

Thus, while I accept that the market needs a short-term solution to deal 
with NATs, I also am firmly of the opinion that it's a short-term solution.  
IPv6 will be attractive for the same reasons that NAT was attractive - 
it will be the path of least pain to solving a pressing set of problems.

Being over-ambitious about goals has prevented more than one working 
group from accomplishing anything useful, and exhausted lots of 
talented people in the process.  I hardly think that advocating a little 
restraint in this group's ambition is sufficient justification for 
personal attacks.

Keith

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:08:40 +0000

>>a sign that the world has decided, and move on.

many nats cost nothin - many are check boxes on existing products -
alternatives cost money - some day tho, they may be required like IP
was when we started with x.25:-)

 >>pondered a lot, for several years - maybe you should wrestle with it too.

when life gives you lemons, pick grapes instead and make wine
or bottle spring water and sell that (with or without added CO2)
its better for your teeth.

 cheers

   jon

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:06:23 -0800 (PST)

> short-term goals rather than trying to make NATs a part of the Internet

With all due respect, Keith, you are saying that addressing NAT 
concerns should not be a short-term goal. You are OK with the WG
addressing firewall concerns however. 

But, insisting on this and repeating the mantra many times over,
even after the WG is formed with a specific mission and chater,
is really disruptive to the work being done in the WG. The charter 
requires the work group to address both NAT and firewall concerns.
It is very confusing and intimidating to the folks who are genuinely
trying to contribute. You jump on the bandwagon the moment someone
says anything about NAT. Soon it turns into a flaming fest.

> support a segmented address space.  

Well, I (and perhaps many others) respectfully disagree. 
This is not a short-term solution yet, not until folks have 
V6 networks deployed.
 
> with NATs, I also am firmly of the opinion that it's a short-term solution.

So, if you do agree working that dealing with NATs is a short term solution,
why are you so repeatedly trying to torpedo the effort going in to solve 
the short term problems ?
 
> it will be the path of least pain to solving a pressing set of problems.

Agreed, perhaps with the exception of address renumbering. 
 
> restraint in this group's ambition is sufficient justification for 

This has been more than just a little advocation of restraint, I might add.

> Keith

Thanks.

regards,
suresh

__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 19:37:19 -0500

[[email-masked] list removed from the reply]

> addressing firewall concerns however. 

That was before the group was chartered, in the context of a discussion
about what the charter of the group would be (and whether the group
should be chartered), and on a different mailing list.  At that time, 
I tried to get the group to investigate solutions that were viable in 
the long term because I thought that was a better use of the group's 
energies; and I thought (and still think) that vendors could address
this problem well enough and that IETF should not lend its efforts 
toward promoting an architectural dead end.

But now that the group is chartered, I'm not objecting to the group
extending NAT - I'm just suggesting that the since group has chosen
this particular path it should realize that this work only has use for
the near term - so it should do that work as quickly as possible and 
not get bogged down trying to do more than can reasonably be done 
with NAT (as RSIP did).

> is really disruptive to the work being done in the WG. 

No.  What is disruptive is for people to respond to a message 
without even bothering to consider what is actually being said, to
make knee-jerk reactions to any input that is based on different 
assumptions or experiences than their world-view, and to personally
attack the poster or accuse the poster of malice - all of which 
compels the poster to at least respond to some of some of those 
accusations and consume the group's energy and bandwidth defending himself.

> This is not a short-term solution yet, not until folks have 

V6 has got a huge headstart on whatever this group will produce.
But no matter.  Get on with this work, and do whatever good you can,
while you still can.

> the short term problems ?

I'm not trying to torpedo the effort, I'm trying to salvage it.
(actually I never was trying to torpedo it - but I was trying to
encourage it to go in more useful directions, and I make no apology
for that.)

> Agreed, perhaps with the exception of address renumbering. 

Agreed that this is the hardest remaining problem to solve for v6.

> This has been more than just a little advocation of restraint, I might add.

Other than responses to the replies from my message, I have posted exactly 
one message to the midcom list.  I will not, repeat, *not* try to 
keep this group from doing what it is chartered to do.  However I do 
have the right to contribute from time to time to the group's discussion, 
(keeping my comments within the scope as defined by the charter)
because I do have a stake in the outcome, and I do have relevant experience 
and background.  

And while I'll try to fashion my comments so that they'll be constructive,
I don't make any promises that you'll like what I say.  

Keith

p.s. I suggest that this be the last message in this thread, but 
I don't claim any right to have the last word.  So if folks really 
feel like they need to respond, please make it brief - or respond
to me in private mail.