Hi, I enjoyed reading your draft, and I'm looking forward to discussing it in Philly. (We've asked Jonathan if he'd present at TSVAREA or INTAREA.) On 2008-2-13, at 15:44, ext Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: > I wrote this because of a discussion that happened during behave at > the > last IETF meeting in Vancouver. There was a presentation in the behave > working group on NAT ALG for SCTP - when run natively over IP - and I > found the entire conversation surreal. A big driver for SCTP was for use a signaling protocol. Other SDOs are using SCTP for signaling in their network architectures, and are also now introducing NAT functionality at controlled places in these architectures. This is why I believe and have argued that an IETF BCP that documents how to correctly NAT SCTP is the right thing to produce. (And, FWIW, DCCP. There's some interest in that as well, but not such an immediate one as for SCTP.) As a SIP-area person, this mode of operation should be familiar to you. Will this BCP make SCTP available behind a home NAT? Nope. But it provides a specification that people can refer to who design network architectures that are more tightly controlled than the end user Internet, i.e., where people can define and then require their NATs to have this functionality. Lars _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf