Subject: RE: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 09:16:03 -0700

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> Your argument does not hold water. Do a survey of customers
>> who have the "advanced" or "pro" package (with higher speed
>> and multiple static IP addresses) and you will find that the
>> very vast majority of them (if not all) use NAT anyway even
>> though they have enough public addresses.

> Joe Abley
> A survey of users where?

Of anywhere where ISPs offer a package with static IP addresses. I mean
a survey of regular customers, not fellow IETFers or geek buddies. How
many of them actually have multiple static IPs and how many are behind
NAT nevertheless. Run your survey and come back with data.

> It's a rich tapestry.

It is.

> Assuming that what is available in one region implies anything
> about what is available in other regions is unproductive.

Assuming that IETFers and their ideas on how to configure a network are
representative of the general consumer base is ignoring this rich
tapestry.

Michel.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 12:27:50 -0400

> NAT nevertheless. Run your survey and come back with data.

I was under the impression that *you* were the one making assertions  
about user behaviour. I don't necessarily disagree with them.

However, asking other people to do surveys to confirm your assertions  
(with the implication that people who can't be bothered to do those  
surveys somehow aren't fit to disagree) seems more like an exercise  
in rhetoric than in engineering.

On 5-Apr-2006, at 11:09, Michel Py wrote:

>                            [...] Do a survey of customers who have the
> "advanced" or "pro" package (with higher speed and multiple static IP
> addresses) and you will find that the very vast majority of them  
> (if not
> all) use NAT anyway even though they have enough public addresses.
>
>                                 [...] By far, the volume of traffic is
> peer-to-peer (mostly questionable in terms of copyright). All major  
> P2P
> apps for the most widely used protocols (bittorrent, edonkey etc)  
> cross
> NAT nicely, most have UPNP support (no configuration of the NAT  
> box) and
> some even have external NAT traversal mechanisms that don't even  
> require
> to open a port. Breaking games an other low-volume apps serves no
> purpose.
>
> When ISPs want to curb traffic, they either: cap the speed, have  
> monthly
> quotas, or (rarely, as it will result in loss of business) enforce  
> their
> AUP.

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:27:02 +0200

>representative of the general consumer base is ignoring this rich

I am no IETFer as you refer to them. I am an unhappy user of IETF 
deliverables, as both a common enduser and as a network metastructure 
architect. I am also a non-commercial R&D matching the IAB's RFC 3869 
criteria. So I think I can add to this point.

My interest is in IETF deliverable QA. I must say I gave up for a 
long expecting the IETF to _globally_ address practical user needs 
(this thread shows it). My only concern is that the IETF (directly 
[ex. BCP 47 on internationalization] or indirectly (ex. NATs)) does 
not prevent interoperability with the way their RFCs (or lack of) are 
market/grassroots applied. I hoped. But I am now afraid the 
Multilingual and Multilateral International Network convergence and 
evolution will be documented and organised elsewhere.

I introduced a project I cannot follow right now due to family 
reasons, calendar technical priorities and Brian's attempt to review 
the Internet standard process description. But I will. This project 
is an IGFTF I documented in my positive (on other grounds) appeal to 
the IAB. It is to: (a) get users inputs documented in an IETF 
readable way (b) through a liaison with the IGF considered as a 
consistent and a main users structure (c) watching at the ethic of 
the IETF answer - the whole thing being strictly respectful of the 
Internet standard process.

But there are certainly other possibilities to get insights of the 
"ignored rich tapestry". Was ever a WG-USERS considered by the 
IETF?  Would it not be a proper time, before the "Intenat" succumbs 
under the weight of unstructured 4500 RFCs? Its charter would be to 
understand how the users needs should be introduced within the 
Internet standard process.

How to do for the IETF deliverable to be readable by 6.5 billions 
people and developers of every languages rather by some thousands.
How to do to find the IETF authoritative response on any issue in a 
matter of seconds.
How to stay in phase with the users' practical needs and practices, 
so they do not invent new NATlike solutions.
How to do not to PR-defamact users for obtaining the non-excluding 
and externally interoperable consensus they were denied (and further 
on violated for that reason). May be even to even consider proposing 
built-in interoperability with non-IETF solutions ...
etc.

jfc
An IETF deliverables user.