On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:38 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Keith Moore <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> When applications that e.g. include point of attachment addresses in the >>> app protocol break in the presence of NATs, one should probably ask >>> whether the NAT is breaking the app, or whether the NAT is making it >>> clear that the app was actually already broken. >> >> It's perfectly reasonable for applications to include IP addresses and port >> numbers in their payloads, >> as this is the only way that the Internet Architecture defines to allow >> applications to make contact >> with particular processes at particular hosts. Some might see this as a >> deficiency in the Internet >> Architecture, but that's the best that we have to work with for now. > > If anything, the fact that "this is is the only way that the Internet > Architecture defines..." doesn't make it reasonable.
So basically you're arguing to impair the ability of applications to function, just so that network operators can futz around with addresses. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
