[125961] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: the alleged evils of NAT,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Apr 27 15:15:37 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BD731B6.6030505@matthew.at>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:13:48 -0700
To: matthew@matthew.at
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 27, 2010, at 11:49 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Apr 27, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>=20
>> =20
>>> Andy Davidson wrote:
>>> =20
>>>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:29:59AM -0400, John R. Levine wrote:
>>>> =20
>>>>>> Did you use Yahoo IM, AIM, or Skype?
>>>>>> =20
>>>>> Yes, yes, and yes. Works fine.
>>>>> =20
>>>> What about every other service/protocol that users use today, and =
might be invented tomorrow ? Do & will they all work with NAT ?
>>>> =20
>>> Anyone inventing a new service/protocol that doesn't work with NAT =
isn't planning on success.
>>> =20
>>=20
>> Respectfully, I disagree. There are many possible innovations that =
are available in a NAT-less world and it is desirable to get to that =
point rather than hamper future innovation with this obsolete baggage.
>> =20
> I would argue that every one of those innovations, if even passably =
useful, can also be implemented in a NAT-full world.
Perhaps, but, often at significant additional code, development time, QA =
resources and other costs.
Also, often at a degraded level requiring a non-NAT'd third-party broker =
to intermediate between any two NAT'd parties attempting to trade =
information.
>> =20
>>>> Do many others work as well or act reliably through NAT ?
>>>> =20
>>> Yes.
>>> =20
>>=20
>> In reality, it's more like some yes, some not so much.
>> =20
> =3D=3D Some designed to work properly in the face of NAT, some ignored =
reality at their peril.
We can agree to disagree about this. The reality is that there are cool =
things you can do with peer to peer networking that simply aren't =
possible in an enforced client-server model.
NAT enforces a client-server model and permanently and irrevocably =
relegates some administrative domains to the client role. This is an =
unfair disadvantage to the users within those domains when it is not by =
the choice of the administrator (and NAT in IPv4 so far, often is not).
>> =20
>>>> Will it stop or hamper the innovation of new services on the
>>>> internet ?
>>>> =20
>>> Hasn't so far.
>>> =20
>>=20
>> Here I have to call BS... I know of a number of cases where it has.
>> =20
> Ok, you called it... so where's the list of such services that haven't =
materialized as a result of NAT?
>=20
Haven't materialized, for one, is an attempt to redefine the question. =
Note that the original question included "hamper". I would argue that =
the cost of maintaining a NAT compatibility lab and the QA staff to use =
it is a sufficient burden to call it "hamper".
For the ones that did not materialize, however, I am at an unfortunate =
disadvantage in the argument. I can tell you that I know of at least 5 =
such cases. However, I cannot reveal the details because I am under NDA =
to the companies that were developing these products. I can tell you =
that in 3 of the 5 cases, adapting them to cope with a NAT world would =
have required the company to run an external service in perpetuity (or =
at least so long as the application would function, no server, no =
function) in order to do the match-making between clients that could not =
directly reach each-other.
I guess a good analogy is this:
In a NAT world, you have only matchmaking services and all of your =
ability to meet potential mates is strictly controlled through these =
matchmaking services. There are many services available independent of =
each other, and, each has its own limitations, biases, and quirks. =
However, you cannot meet potential mates without involving at least one =
matchmaker.
In a NAT-Free world, you have the ability to use a matchmaking service =
if you like, but, you also have the ability to meet potential mates at =
bars, in the grocery store, on the street, in restaurants, through =
chance meetings, introductions by a friend, or even at work.
It is possible that if you never knew it was possible to meet potential =
mates in all of these other ways, you would happily deal with a vast =
number of matchmaking services hoping to find a useful result. On the =
other hand, if you were to ask the average person who has experienced =
the latter scenario if they would be willing to limit their choices to =
only using a dating service, my guess would be that most people would =
reject the idea outright.
Owen
