Re: The myth of NAT traversal, was: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition

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

 



Hi Brian,

regarding lack of simplicity: Different solutions build on different assumptions. If you make specific assumptions then the solution is much simpler.

There is a recent document that aims to compare some of the NAT / firewall protocol proposals:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eggert-middlebox-control-survey-01.txt

It is not yet finished but might give you an idea what the different assumptions of some of the proposals are.

Ciao
Hannes

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-07-14 00:07, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/13/07 5:43 PM, "michael.dillon@xxxxxx" <michael.dillon@xxxxxx> wrote:
I believe that we need a more general protocol for hosts inside a site
perimeter to communicate with the perimeter gateways and request
services from them.

We've actually got several of them, starting with SOCKS (which
could have been extended), continuing through RSIP, on to midcom
and SIMCO.  Note that "midcom" was so named under the assumption
that whatever was done would be extensible to other sorts of
middleboxes than firewalls and NATs

We could spend an awful lot of time talking about why none
of them has caught on, but I think it's fair to say that that
failure has not been caused by a perceived lack of generality.

Maybe by a lack of simplicity?

draft-woodyatt-ald-01 is a recent proposal.

    Brian

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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