Re: US DoD and IPv6

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

 



On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> When applications that e.g. include point of attachment addresses in the
>> app protocol break in the presence of NATs, one should probably ask
>> whether the NAT is breaking the app, or whether the NAT is making it
>> clear that the app was actually already broken.
>
> It's perfectly reasonable for applications to include IP addresses and port numbers in their payloads,
> as this is the only way that the Internet Architecture defines to allow applications to make contact
> with particular processes at particular hosts.  Some might see this as a deficiency in the Internet
> Architecture, but that's the best that we have to work with for now.

If anything, the fact that "this is is the only way that the Internet
Architecture defines..." doesn't make it reasonable.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@xxxxxxxxxxx || fgont@xxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



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