The way I look at the problem we have a gateway issue similar to those that we used to have with smtp in the days of decnet sna etc.
The only difference is that we have both sides of the gateway running IP albeit with different numbering schemes.
So terminating the application session at layer 7 and then originating a fresh one at the point where the numbering scheme changes appears to me to be a simple and principled approach.
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 01:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Melinda Shore; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: The myth of NAT traversal, was: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
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 mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf