I'm not arguing about that, it is delaying things indeed. However I
wonder which kind of instant messaging you are referring to, as all
the
ones I've seen work fine through NAT.
Peer-to-peer CUSeeMe stopped working for me when I installed a NAT box
at home. Now I can only do peer-to-peer
Armando,
Michel Py wrote:
I'm not arguing about that, it is delaying things indeed.
However I wonder which kind of instant messaging you are
referring to, as all the ones I've seen work fine through NAT.
Armando L. Caro Jr.
Yahoo and AOL (I have never used MSN). Sure, you can do
normal
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:15:07 PST, Michel Py said:
In many enterprise environments, this would be a feature not a bug.
There are some webcams that are definitely inappropriate in a business
setup; given the lack of good enterprise content filtering solutions for
IM, if NAT does break IM
Michel Py wrote:
Joe Touch wrote:
Since we've been lacking a similar non-NAT solution,
we (ISI) built one called TetherNet, as posted earlier:
http://www.isi.edu/tethernet
What is this beside a box that setups a tunnel? What's the difference
with:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Michel Py wrote:
I'm not arguing about that, it is delaying things indeed. However I
wonder which kind of instant messaging you are referring to, as all the
ones I've seen work fine through NAT.
Yahoo and AOL (I have never used MSN). Sure, you can do normal chatting,
but
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Michel Py wrote:
Michel Py wrote:
I'm not arguing about that, it is delaying things indeed.
However I wonder which kind of instant messaging you are
referring to, as all the ones I've seen work fine through NAT.
Armando L. Caro Jr.
Yahoo and AOL (I have never used
In many enterprise environments, this would be a feature not a bug.
There are some webcams that are definitely inappropriate in a business
setup; given the lack of good enterprise content filtering solutions for
IM, if NAT does break IM webcams I don't have a problem with it.
As of
file
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
|In many enterprise environments, this would be a feature not a bug.
|There are some webcams that are definitely inappropriate in a business
|setup; given the lack of good enterprise content filtering solutions for
|IM, if NAT does
Michel Py wrote:
[..]
As of
file transfer, it does not bother me either as like a lot of other
network administrators I have a problem with users sharing their office
computer files with anyone unknown on the net.
I trust you frisk all employees for CD-R/RWs, floppies and USB sticks
A new sysadmin has recently joined the company where I work (I am a
software engineer and part-time sysadmin). As he's the only full-time
sysadmin here, the network now falls under his purview. Today he
showed me his plans for reorganisation of the network, and they involve
introducing NAT on a
Zefram writes:
My question for the list is is there a web page or
other document anywhere that comprehensively states
the case against NAT?
If your new administrator is of the type who fixes things that aren't
broken, it may be the admininistrator that needs replacement, not the
network
Yeah, but this was the point. Where is the community consensus
document that says all this?
Spencer
- Original Message -
From: Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: arguments against NAT
And, to follow up on my own posting (sigh), RFC 3235 and 3027 are
Informational... we have no STD, and no BCP, that come up when you
search for NAT or Network Address Translator, so... perhaps there is
no community consensus document that says what the community consensus
appears to be, and the
On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 08:22 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Yeah, but this was the point. Where is the community consensus
document that says all this?
3235 goes into some of it, albeit from an application perspective.
2993 does as well, but at three years old it's already slightly
outdated.
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Yeah, but this was the point. Where is the community consensus
document that says all this?
RFC 2993 is the closest thing I could find to what I want, and it's
rather good (thanks Tony), so it's at the top of the reading list I've
sent to the new sysadmin. I'll be
I've argued strongly against NAT, but he's one of those people who seem
to be willing to accept arbitrary amounts of pain (we don't need to
use [protocols that put IP addresses in payload], timeouts aren't
a problem). I'm now pointing him at some relevant RFCs. My question
for the list is is
Spencer Dawkins writes:
... perhaps there is no community consensus document
that says what the community consensus appears to be ...
I don't believe there is any consensus. I'm among those who don't like
NAT, considering it only an occasional, necessary evil.
Melinda Shore wrote:
although frankly this is one particular area where
there's a clear and growing divide between this
community and the network administrator community
(particularly enterprise and residential).
Because this community has long ignored real problems and followed the
lead of
On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 10:44 AM, Michel Py wrote:
Because this community has long ignored real problems and followed the
lead of protocol fanatics or rhetoricians that for the sake of
technical
elegance design protocols and architectures that look real nice on
paper
and don't solve
Zefram,
Our take on why NATs are bad is at:
http://dsonline.computer.org/0207/departments/wp4icon.htm
And our method for undoing what a NAT does, called TetherNet is at:
http://www.isi.edu/tethernet and paper about it is at:
http://www.isi.edu/touch/pubs/discex03-tethernet/
(Contact me if you
...
I've argued strongly against NAT, but he's one of those people who seem
to be willing to accept arbitrary amounts of pain (we don't need to
use [protocols that put IP addresses in payload],
how about DNS? two of the extra years that got tacked onto the decade
of DNSSEC were due
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
NAT has obvious disadvantages. ...
... Chat and instant messaging services will fail, and there is no
way to get them to work with NAT.
So far I have not been able to get chat or instant messages services to
fail because
of NAT. (Not that I am saying that NAT is
Doug Royer wrote:
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
NAT has obvious disadvantages. ...
... Chat and instant messaging services will fail, and there is no
way to get them to work with NAT.
So far I have not been able to get chat or instant messages services to
fail because
of NAT. (Not that I
Melinda Shore wrote:
...
I'm not sure if you're arguing that there should be a comprehensive
document presenting the technical problems introduced by NATs. I
suspect there should be, although frankly this is one particular
area where there's a clear and growing divide between this community
and
My question
for the list is is there a web page or other document anywhere that
comprehensively states the case against NAT?
Because until recently there was a widespread belief that we were stuck with
NAT and might as well make the best of it, and that we couldn't make the best
of it if we
Melinda,
Melinda Shore wrote:
The problems we're seeing from NATs - and they're considerable
It depends of the situation; don't generalize, the reality of numbers is
against you. The number of sites where NAT works just fine is orders of
magnitude greater than the number of sites where it
Joe Touch wrote:
Since we've been lacking a similar non-NAT solution,
we (ISI) built one called TetherNet, as posted earlier:
http://www.isi.edu/tethernet
What is this beside a box that setups a tunnel? What's the difference
with:
Michel Py;
Melinda Shore wrote:
The problems we're seeing from NATs - and they're considerable
It depends of the situation; don't generalize, the reality of numbers is
against you. The number of sites where NAT works just fine is orders of
magnitude greater than the number of sites where it
28 matches
Mail list logo
