IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IESG position on NAT traversal and IPv4/IPv6

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Tue, 16 November 2010 11:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 AAAE53A6A4E for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 03:59:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.512
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.358, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96]
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 S4QvJFEtfVc7 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 03:59:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ACB883A695E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 03:59:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 9691 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2010 12:34:05 -0000
Received: from softbank219001188004.bbtec.net (HELO ?192.168.1.21?) (219.1.188.4) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 16 Nov 2010 12:34:05 -0000
Message-ID: <4CE27231.6050009@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:59:45 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
Subject: Re: IESG position on NAT traversal and IPv4/IPv6
References: <F443844F-67B6-418F-9E32-B2F498686650@acmepacket.com> <4CE0F9D9.2050002@ericsson.com> <4CE1228F.3090409@piuha.net> <4CE12517.4080908@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <AANLkTinW7auVw8EB+v4_WXiHPDxoRiyhmYPaLZ98uie-@mail.gmail.com> <4CE19AEB.5020307@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <FF22F332-DF18-4D83-95AD-40B5F6961BFF@checkpoint.com>
In-Reply-To: <FF22F332-DF18-4D83-95AD-40B5F6961BFF@checkpoint.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <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: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:59:56 -0000

Yoav Nir wrote:

> Why not?  While I agree that firewalls are diverse, they are all
> made by vendors, and the big firewall vendors all have employees
> who participate in the IETF. An IETF standard that allows firewall
> traversal for legitimate traffic is very likely to be adopted by
> all the vendors. It might not work with some bargain basement
> home router you get at Wallmart, but even they eventually get
> updated software.

According to your theory, a universal NAT traversal protocol
should already exists.

						Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email