Re: Last Call: 'NAT Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP' to BCP (draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp)

[Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>]

> If we change this to "address independent", close to 100% of NATs 
> produced will be non behave compliant. At this point applications will 
> have nothing they can rely on and we will be at the same point we are 
> now and the BEHAVE WG will have been reduce to an irrelevant waste of time.

what's the point of this exercise?  to encourage predictable behavior 
that applications cannot use?  to give NAT vendors a seal of approval?

maybe it's just not possible to specify a NAT such that it's useful to 
application writers and vendors will build it...at least, not without 
significant functionality beyond just address translation and packet 
filtering.

Keith


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf