W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > December 2002

RE: Application protocols and Address Translation

From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 18:27:03 -0800
To: Patrik Faltstrom <paf@cisco.com>, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Cc: "Carl Ford" <carl@ietfwatch.net>, <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <LIECKHBKICJFBLOMPHNMIENMDNAA.dwing@cisco.com>

Except for STUN and (perhaps) other MIDCOM WG items, and except in
IPSec-over-UDP and -TCP which exist primarily to better traverse NATs.  So,
perhaps the wording should be something like "unless expressly designed,
IETF protocols are only guaranteed without NATs".

-d

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Faltstrom [mailto:paf@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:40 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Carl Ford; discuss@apps.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Application protocols and Address Translation
>
>
>
> On tisdag, dec 3, 2002, at 13:18 Europe/Stockholm, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>
> > IMHO, the IETF community's job should be to make applications that
> > run better with a good supply of addresses and without NAT. Beyond
> > that we get into economic or regulatory questions, where the IETF
> > can't play.
> >
>
> Well said Brian. I think this is what we should say in this document I
> would like to have. That we in the IETF _only_ guarantee functionality
> for our protocols where NAT does _not_ exist.
>
>     paf
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 21:31:51 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tuesday, 24 February 2004 19:46:25 EST