--On tirsdag, juni 17, 2003 19:33:24 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 11:51 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> The key in my view is to work on the NAT vendors, instead of viewing > NAT > boxes as an obstacle they should be seen for what they really are, an > essential and important part of the internet infrastructure.
you obviously don't write applications.
No, because I design and use applications I really wish that the IETF had designed a decent NAT box spec rather than adopting the ostrich position.
Phil,
at the risk of feeding into a long-burning flamewar: when you say "a decent NAT box spec", what do you think of?
As far as I can tell, a NAT box contains, over and above what it does because it's a router, a firewall or any other thing it might do:
- Address translation
- Application layer gatewaying
- Remote control of the NAT functionality (already being worked on in MIDCOM)
So what did you want a "decent NAT box spec" to say?
Harald, genuinely curious