> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Bernard Aboba > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:21 AM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: I-D Action: > draft-rosenberg-internet-wait-hourglass-00.txt > > Lars Eggert said: > > "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." > > I agree with Lars here -- having a specification is the first step. There is a milestone in BEHAVE for a SCTP NAT, along the lines of BEHAVE's milestones (some completed) for TCP, UDP, and ICMP. We also have a milestone for a DCCP NAT. > However, I would suspect that clearly specifying how SCTP and DCCP > work with NAT would eventually make it possible to obtain a home NAT > supporting those protocols, particularly if implementations were made > available within the popular distributions (e.g. DD-WRT) on > which those home NATs are frequently based. I am not aware of the status of SCTP NAT code, but I did learn this week that there is a Linux implementation of DCCP NAT. > On another note, I think it makes a difference whether > UDP/TCP is combined > with IP at the waist, or whether UDP/TCP is considered a > lower layer on > which IP, etc. can run. That is, whether we have general NAT > traversal > mechanisms which support a wide array of applications, or > whether we end > up having to modify each individual protocol. The draft > seems to suggest > the latter approach. I disagree. A simple UDP tunneling protocol sounds useful, too. There are currently two drafts for running SCTP and DCCP over UDP. I look forward to discussing the benefits of a per-protocol UDP tunneling approach versus a generic, simple UDP tunnel approach. -d _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf