Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 21:55:34 PDT, Michel Py said:

> I'm sorry but it is nothing near being that simple. Although if it does
> not work through a firewall, it MAYBE because the firewall does block a
> class of traffic (more likely because someone forgot to punch the right
> hole), there are _plenty_ of other reasons why it does not work through
> a firewall, one of the top ones being asymmetric traffic when there is
> more than one exit point and the firewall hard state not being
> distributed.

OK, so firewalls can fail because they're misconfigured or mis-deployed.

Death of the Internet Predicted.  Film at 11.  This is hardly news. Stuff
doesn't work right if you mis-set your netmask, or your default route, or
your nameserver, or whatever...

The point I was making is that if an NNTP connection fails because the firewall
is *configured* to say 'None Shall Pass' (insert Monty Python .wav here ;)
then that is *proper* behavior.  If a VOIP connection fails because the NAT
is saying 'None Shall Pass', then that's *broken* behavior.

I checked RFC3027.  20 *pages* of things that either break horribly over a NAT,
or (as in the Activision example) say "We can hack this to work if we make
the permanent restriction that there has to be a server that's NOT behind a NAT
and clients have to contact it".  Sounds a lot like RFC3344, actually.

Great.  WHo would *EVER* have thought that the biggest market for IP Mobility
was to hack through NAT dain bramage?

Attachment: pgp00274.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]