IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: NATs *ARE* evil!

Chris Millikin <Chrism@ninthhouse.com> Fri, 15 December 2000 22:50 UTC

Received: by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id RAA18055 for ietf-outbound.10@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:50:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exchange.ninthhouse.com ([63.113.245.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA29331 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:16:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: by EXCHANGE with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <YTV4D0RT>; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:20:42 -0800
Message-ID: <8081BEAAEC32D31188F900508B2CFE5E020E1658@EXCHANGE>
From: Chris Millikin <Chrism@ninthhouse.com>
To: 'Matt Holdrege' <matt@ipverse.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: NATs *ARE* evil!
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:20:41 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org

Point taken.  Rather than reiterate my point I will refer to the following
excerpt from RFC 2993:

"
   -  NATs enable casual use of private addresses.  These uncoordinated
      addresses are subject to collisions when companies using these
      addresses merge or want to directly interconnect using VPNs.
"

This is becoming a major drawback to NAT.

-Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Holdrege [mailto:matt@ipverse.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 10:19 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: NATs *ARE* evil!


Folks should read and *refer* to the NAT WG documents before commenting. An 
awful lot of work was put into the content and wording of these documents.

RFC 2663
draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-06.txt
&
RFC 2993

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email