RE: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?

From: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
To: <darlewis at cisco.com>, <v6ops at ietf.org>, <ietf at ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:14:01 -0000
In-reply-to: <60C4A248E730F249990993E3B9BD44D806AE9B31 at xmb-sjc-218.amer.cisco.com>

DL> Port/Overload NAT for IPv4 (NAT:P) has security benefits 
  > in that it requires explicit configuration to allow for 
  > inbound unsolicited transport connections (via port forwarding)
  > to 'inside' hosts.

Perhaps you missed this statement from
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mrw-behave-nat66-01.txt>

   NAT66 devices that comply with
   this specification MUST NOT perform port mapping.

--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
  - From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis)

References:
- RE: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
  - From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis)

Prev by Date: adm plea: avoid/reduce massive cross-posting? (was: Can we have on NAT66 discussion?)
Next by Date: Re: uncooperative DNSBLs, IETF misinformation (was: several messages)
Previous by thread: Re: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
Next by thread: RE: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

RE: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.