RE: [Ietf-behave] IP options and NATs

I certainly know of quite a number of residential NATs that discard IP
options.

On the slightly related subject of things being discarded I also know of
several that discard DSCP information too.

Regards,
Dave

* -----Original Message-----
* From: ietf-behave-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
* [mailto:ietf-behave-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan Wing
* Sent: 02 August 2006 17:20
* To: ietf-behave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
* Cc: 'Pashalidis, Andreas'
* Subject: [Ietf-behave] IP options and NATs
* 
* While reviewing draft-pashalidis-nsis-gist-legacynats-00.txt, 
* I noticed:
* 
*     >     The discussion in this document is based on the
*     >     following assumptions.  
*     >     ...
*     >     6.  The legacy NAT does not drop IP packets with a
*     >         Router Alert Option (RAO) or an IPv6 extensions
*     >         header.  Furthermore, the RAO or extension header
*     >         is also present in the forwarded packet.  If the
*     >         NAT does not do this, then there is no way for a
*     >         GIST QUERY to traverse the NAT, which is a
*     >         prerequisite for the mechanisms described in this
*     >         document.
* 
* I am wondering how today's NATs handle IP options.  I asked 
* our engineering teams and found that Cisco's IOS NAT 
* preserves IP options across the NAT, but our PIX and our ASA 
* drop all IP options.  Testing will be necessary to determine 
* how various residential style NATs (Linksys, etc.) handle IP 
* options such as RAO.
* 
* Does anyone know what other NATs do with RAO?
* 
* -d
* _______________________________________________
* Ietf-behave mailing list
* Ietf-behave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
* https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-behave
* 
* 