RE: Application protocols and Address Translation

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
>