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

---

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: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:54:53 -0500

NAT's work for web surfing. No dispute here.

  NAT's make the Internet into TV.

  NAT's suck for napster-type applications.
  It was napster like (e.g. peer-to-peer) things that made the Internet
popular. Based upon some data on "web ready cell phones" being used primarily
to send text messages (e.g. do "peer-to-peer" type things), I'd say that
the love for NATs will very soon decline.

   :!mcr!:            |  Solidum Systems Corporation, http://www.solidum.com
   Michael Richardson |For a better connected world,where data flows faster<tm>
 Personal: http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/People/Michael_Richardson/Bio.html
	mailto:[email-masked]	mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Ed Gerck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:05:34 -0800

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

NATs are already part of the Internet, and gaining share.

> support a segmented address space.

You miss at least one other possibility.  If it is possible to develop
an addressing scheme that works in a heterogeneous network, then
we can have point-to-point functionality across system borders and
do not require a homogeneous address space to do so.   Now, if you
look into the science of Thermodynamics (for example) you will see that
this involves a meta-problem that was already solved two centuries ago.

NATs are a consequence of a choice rather than makers of a choice.
The choice is to use heterogeneous networks. I contend that the reasons
for this choice can be found in Nature -- for example, to adapt to local needs
without imposing more expensive non-local changes.  This is not an Internet
phenomenon, it is IMO the reflection of a more general principle.

BTW, I agree with Noel's solution that a NAT-haters list might be in order.
Maybe you could call it NAT-not list, to avoid the "hate".  Meanwhile, the
rest of the world would continue to pursue ways to deal with the real-world
needs answered by NATs (and things to come).

Cheers,

Ed Gerck

---

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

Thanks.

regards,
suresh

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

---

From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:40:34 -0800

HI,

On the list below, I believe that peer-to-peer applications like
napster can work in a NAT world. All you need is a registration
and rendezvous service to put the two peers together. This can
be part of the box that also provides the NAT service. 

At 05:54 PM 1/31/2001 -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:

>   Michael Richardson 

Regards,
/david t. perkins

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 19:46:05 -0500

ietf-list folks:

Given that a single contribution to a WG's discussion (keeping entirely 
within the charter) has resulted in multiple personal attacks, I felt 
compelled to respond to this message.  But as this discussion is really 
specific to the midcom list, I've sent my full reply there.  If you're 
really interested you can read it in the midcom list archives.

Unless and until it becomes a process issue, I'd just as soon deal 
with purely personal disageements in private mail, rather than on 
the IETF list.  

Keith

> ...

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:34:15 -0500

> and rendezvous service to put the two peers together. 

why do people so often assume that there are *two* peers?

Ketih

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:58:06 -0800 (PST)

% 
% > On the list below, I believe that peer-to-peer applications like
% > napster can work in a NAT world. All you need is a registration
% > and rendezvous service to put the two peers together. 
% 
% why do people so often assume that there are *two* peers?
% 
% Ketih

'cause one entity does not a peering session make? :)
e.g.  it takes (at least) two to tango... or peer.

-- 
--bill

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:00:31 -0500

> e.g.  it takes (at least) two to tango... or peer.

"at least".  yes.

Keith