RE: ocean: do not boil

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

Who is we?  First Bank of USA, GM, AB Germany, Worldcom?  I can't follow what "we" your referring to so I can respond?  I am sure you don't me v6ops an IETF working group?  We are not running a network?  We have folks who build, run, deploy, them but for who?

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian@hursley.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:15 AM
> To: Hesham Soliman (EAB)
> Cc: 'Margaret Wasserman'; 'Bob Hinden'; Randy Bush; Bob Fink; 
> Jun-ichiro
> itojun Hagino; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: ocean: do not boil
> 
> 
> "Hesham Soliman (EAB)" wrote:
> > 
> >   >
> >   > >   > p2p applications can be designed to use intermediaries,
> >   > >   > just like SMTP and HTTP. If I was designing an apps
> >   > >   > protocol today, I would definitely make sure it could
> >   > >   > be relayed between address spaces at applications level.
> >   > >
> >   > >=> Are we in a position to mandate this?
> >   >
> >   > We're not in a position to _mandate_ anything.  However, we are
> >   > in a position to make recommendations about the best 
> way to resolve
> >   > certain scenarios.
> > 
> > => I'm not trying to be -ve, but unless we mandate
> > that all applications will use this model, or alternatively
> > assume that HTTP and SMTP are the only important applications
> > for the medium term there is no point eliminating the
> > v6 -> v4 scenarios.
> 
> I didn't suggest eliminating them. But since they will be even worse
> to manage than IPv4 NAT, we should use them only when forced to.
> 
>    Brian
> 
>