RE: ocean: do not boil

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

We should not declare either.  It is not IMO the working groups job to tell user how to deploy.  One user will want to use NAT and the other will want to use DS.  Our job is to make sure both are understood and the end results from both.  This will truly help the user decide maybe.  If we declare a specific mechanism as PS then we need to make sure it has no known protocol technical deficiencies.  Then we have done our job.  Anything else is absurd and borders on pure egomania.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hesham Soliman (EAB) [mailto:hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:44 AM
> To: 'Brian E Carpenter'
> Cc: 'Margaret Wasserman'; 'Bob Hinden'; Randy Bush; Bob Fink; 
> Jun-ichiro
> itojun Hagino; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: ocean: do not boil
> 
> 
> 
>   > >   > >   > 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.
> 
> => I fully agree that this is something that should
> only be used/deployed if people are forced to do
> it. Translators in general are not pretty and don't
> make life simpler, but are necessary sometimes. 
> What I'm not sure about is whether running a dual
> network containing IPv6 (global) and IPv4 private addresses
> is simpler than just running an IPv6 network with 
> v6 <=> v4 translators. 
> 
> Hesham
> 
> 
>