Re: proto-41 forwarding vs NAT traversal [Re: Tunneling scenarios and mechanisms evaluation]

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > True enough.  However, I have doubts on how useful this case is in 
> > practice, as a large number of gateways cannot be expected to be 
> > upgraded -- that is, we will have to support host-centric deployment 
> > in any case.
> 
> I don't agree. In general is in the other way around. Is more and
> more often that the routers, gateways, etc., are updated from time
> to time, with new firmware or software.

For technical users, yes; for non-techies, I have serious doubts about
that.  DSL products bought or provided by the ISP stay there for 3-5
years at least, and they don't have a software upgrade; even if they
had, the average user wouldn't know or dare to install it.

If an IPv6 product (e.g., Microsoft's some new shiny new patch kit to
use v6 in peer-to-peer) was being deployed, saying "upgrade your NAT
box" is not an option.  The case where we can't do anything about the
deployed base is the minimal target: it must be supported as well as
it can be.  If we can, we might also want to create optimization(s)  
for the cases where some box has been upgraded (or not).

> > This should go into the draft somehow, but as listing these would 
> > complicate the matrices a lot, I'm not sure whether the matrix is the 
> > right place to add this result.
> 
> I think if we are trying to approach to a more complete solution, we
> need to include these options in the draft/matrix. As I indicated in
> the meeting, I'm sure there are 100% perfect solutions, but they
> will take long time to be ready; but at the same time, completing
> the matrix, even when complicating it a little bit, is mandatory, to
> cover as much as possible the real market situation, and
> consequently provide the needed transition tools, to facilitate how
> the deployment can happen (in the real market).

The real market situation can be handled if we design solutions that
work with the lowest common denominator (e.g., no NAT/gateway
support), right?

> > > 2) We don't need NAT traversal IF proto-41-forwarding is working in
> > > that NAT
> > 
> > Yet, that is an optimization (or at least, cannot be the only
> > solution) unless we can be assured that sufficiently large percentage
> > of boxes do that (e.g., over 95% of the market or whatever).
> 
> Our testing, considering not just the number of models and
> manufacturers in the market, but also how many units there are in
> the market from each manufacturer, shows about 85% supporting
> proto-41, but I guess this will improve. I'm not sure if is good to
> mention here specific brands and models, but in any case is simple
> to understand. We can have a market with 100 models (just an
> example), but one of the models has 60% of the market sharing and
> supports it. That means that we have already 60% of the market
> supporting this feature, just add the others from the pool of 100,
> and you have the 85%.

I think it's OK to mention brands and models -- there's precedent in 
draft-jennings-midcom-stun-results-00.txt and a lot of other 
documents.  We might not want to publish those results as an RFC, but 
I think it would be useful to make that list public so folks could see 
if they something to add to the list, see whether they have different 
experiences, see if their product would be supported or not, etc.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings