On Tue, 6 May 2014, Doug Barton wrote:
So NAT is an interesting case, since there's no doubt that the IETF dropped the ball on that. But the problem there was not that the IETF chose not to act in order to not support NAT, the problem there was that the collective decision process failed by determining that NAT was a bad idea.
The collective decision had the right outcome. NAT is bad - don't do it. It is however just like climate chance - those doing it don't care about the fall out and aren't forced the pay the price of the problems they cause. The sheer amount of protocol workaround for not having a peer-to-peer internet anymore is a huge cost that everyone collectively bears just because a few players wanted a cheaper internet method that has caused great pollution.
The remedy to that error is not to swing the pendulum all the way in the other direction, and support every idea no matter how bad. The answer is to make better decisions.
The problem is not the IETF. The problem is capitalism making decisions. Look at the IPv4 to IPv6 transition. I don't think the IETF made a bad choice. They gave everyone over a decade to work things out. Capitalism doesn't care. IPv6 was too expensive until it was a requirement. That's also why NATs came into existence. As for DNS, I do like that people can use random DNS resolvers out on the internet (and hopefully securely and privately soon as well). The edns-subnet option is a decent compromise in revealing rough locations for a large geographic region. I am still a little fearful of abuse, but that same abuse would happen if I queried using my own validating DNS resolver on my mobile device, except they would use the exposed IP address directly. Paul _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
