> On Aug 26, 2018, at 3:03 PM, Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 11:26:47PM +0200, Ole Troan wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 26 Aug 2018, at 23:12, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> As I???ve mentioned, there are rules under which a NAT is a valid Internet
>>> device, but it is simply not just a router.
>>
>> If there really was, can you point to where those rules are? Describing the
>> behavior of the host stack and applications?
>
> "A NAT is a transport layer circuit proxy whose network stack owns
> outside adresses on the inside and inside addresses on the outside.”
My definitions:
NAT: viewed as a router or link to devices on the private side, but a host on
the public side [RFC3022]
Proxy: viewed as different hosts on each side [Sh86]
Transparent proxy: viewed, together with the source, as a single host to the
sink but invisible to the source on both sides; these are sometimes called
“performance-enhancing proxies” (PEP) [RFC3135]
> Something like that. Very likely not explicitly defined that way given
> how BEHAVE just developed pragmatically whats necessary to make
> things work and AFAIK wa prudent enough not to have the architectural
> argument .
IMO, the different types of middleboxes can be defined in terms of the
combinations of behaviors of existing defined network architecture components
(see above).
Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
