Noel Chiappa wrote:
> In a sense, the "least evil" future of NAT.
To me, that's like saying that burning someone to death is less evil than
hanging them. Well, maybe, but the difference is 'in the noise'...
Indeed. This is just one direction I've seen people pulling in the IETF.
I didn't mean to imply that "least evil" was equivalent to "good"... ;-)
From an architectural point of view, NAT is truly ugly, and not just because
it fiddles with the packet contents. There's also the issue that it's putting
state in the network (and 'engineered' NAT might make that slightly less
ugly, for example by allowing replication, etc, so it's not quite so
brittle), etc, etc.
Agree completely. We both suggest that there are reasons why networks
might want to keep it, and that old views like "NAT is temporary until
IPv6 rolls out" just aren't as simple as maybe they once sounded. So
possibly NAT remains a required ugliness?
I'm just not sure what's gained by throwing the question of NAT over the
fence to the IETF. What will they say differently?
-S.
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
