![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
this thread has been posted to *4* mailing list.not sure whether other list adm had the same issue, but rrg adm keeps getting lots non-member posting warnings ... so the msg would not get delivered without manual intervention (i.e. defeating the intention of cross posting)
wonder if there is a better way out... Lixia (not complaining, just raising an awareness:) On Nov 13, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On 11/13/08 10:06 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip allegedly wrote:I beleive that the question would not arise If we had a coherent Internet architectureThe idea that an application can or should care that the IP address of a packet is constant from source to destination is plain bonkers. It was no an assumption in the original Internet architecture and should not bean assumption that any application should rely on.That's not the problem. The issue is location. Once we haveestablished a session then how the packets are labeled for network layerpurposes doesn't matter much (modulo security) but how do we get communications set up in the first place? Suppose I want to reach "foo". Who do I ask to find a locator for him? Split DNS works fine when there are just two states, inside and outside -- a DNS server can be configured to know how to respond in each case. But if you were to sprinkle NATs all over the Internet there would be no place that could give a confident answer about how I, over here, should name foo in thenetwork layer in order to get a packet to him, and have that answer get to me in the correct form. So it is very important to understand wherewe think it might be safe to put what kinds of NATs. swb
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.