IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG position on NAT traversal and IPv4/IPv6

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Mon, 15 November 2010 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB51C28C0EB; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 04:07:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IpCHd0SaIun4; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 04:07:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D227828C0E8; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 04:07:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D102CC3C; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:07:47 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a0bLAi5qvckN; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:07:47 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE3D2CC2B; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:07:44 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <4CE1228F.3090409@piuha.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:07:43 +0200
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101027)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: IESG position on NAT traversal and IPv4/IPv6
References: <F443844F-67B6-418F-9E32-B2F498686650@acmepacket.com> <4CE0F9D9.2050002@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CE0F9D9.2050002@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>, "ietf@ietf.org list" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:07:09 -0000

FWIW, I think that we should provide NAT traversal in the protocols that 
we develop (or as a part of some more general toolbox that the protocols 
employ). This is important, and some protocols have been hurt by not 
having such support initially. NAT/FW traversal is also important even 
with IPv6, as you may have a firewall even in IPv6 (or be going through 
a NAT64).

Jari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email