Subject: RE: [Simple] Sessions of MESSAGEs

From: "Patil Basavaraj (NET/Dallas)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:45:14 -0500

>
>RE-activating this thread as I believe it is too important to be
ignored.
>Because it needs a firewall traversal box (like entfw-02 or myriad
other
>designs), which most enterprises will not deploy, the current messaging
>proposal is not suitable for the enterprise and will be undeployed in
>enterprise networks.
>

I agree with Robert's sentiments here. All the "myriad"  designs 
have no value if we do not see a glimmer of a chance at being
deployed. 

>I did not say enterprise networks will not deploy SIP-based instant
>messaging.  I would prefer that they deploy an IETF protocol than a
>proprietary one.

Going with an IETF defined solution helps in an interoperable IM ;)

---

From: "David R. Oran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:25:29 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> Patil Basavaraj (NET/Dallas)
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 1:45 PM
> To: 'ext Robert Brown'; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Simple] Sessions of MESSAGEs
> 
> 
> >
I find the logic behind this conclusion utterly incomprehensible. First
of all, for "enterprise IM" the firewall/NAT issue doesn't even arise
because the communication stays within the enterprise. If there are
multiple sites interconnected, they tend to use VPN technology for
precisely the reasons of not wanting to deal with the NAT/FW bull....
for their own internal communication.

Therefore, it seems completely wrongheaded to burden the IM protocols
with IM-specific mechanisms for firewall/NAT traversal when this is know
to hurt robustness, limit scalability, and introduce gratuitous
complexity.

Second, IM is one of a class of "peer-to-peer" applications which all
need essentially the same external rendezvous point to deal with the
symmetric double-NAT problem. Solving this on a per protocol basis leads
to the same horrendous rat hole we're already seeing with every protocol
needing its own ALG on the firewall/NAT.

Everybody think THEIR protocol is the most important, has the most
urgent requirements, is clearly "special", and has the tremendous
revenue/commercial impact that it clearly needs custom mechanisms.

> have no value if we do not see a glimmer of a chance at being 
Lack of deployment of a standard IM protocol has much more to do with
clashing proprietary solutions than with inadequacy of the IETF
proposals.

> >messaging.  I would prefer that they deploy an IETF protocol than a 
Sure, but what does this have to do with the purely technical discussion
of how to achieve FW/NAT traversal?

> Going with an IETF defined solution helps in an interoperable 
> IM ;) _______________________________________________
> simple mailing list
> [email-masked] 
> http://mailman.dynamicsoft.com/mailman/listinf> o/simple
>