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

[Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig at gmx.net>]

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 at bt.com" <michael.dillon at bt.com> 
> > 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 at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf