IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [NAT] Re: the future of the NAT working group

Rajiv Raghunarayan <raraghun@cisco.com> Fri, 19 October 2001 14:47 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20469; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:47:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA27009; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:36:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA26986 for <nat@ns.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:36:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com [171.71.163.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20263 for <nat@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:36:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cbin2-mira-01.cisco.com (cbin2-mira-01.cisco.com [192.135.246.89]) by sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id f9JEaCm04235; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 07:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cisco.com ([64.104.134.130]) by cbin2-mira-01.cisco.com (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ANU01175 (AUTH raraghun); Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:05:57 +0530 (IST)
Message-ID: <3BD03A81.28CD669@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:06:49 +0530
From: Rajiv Raghunarayan <raraghun@cisco.com>
Reply-To: rrajiv@cisco.com
Organization: Cisco Systems Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matt Holdrege <matt.holdrege@verizon.net>
CC: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, nat@ietf.org, srisuresh@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [NAT] Re: the future of the NAT working group
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011018151553.00abd8b0@mail.gte.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: nat-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: nat-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Network Address Translation <nat.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: nat@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Matt/Scott,

There were two main concerns with the NAT MIB, brought up on this 
alias:

1. Conditional NAT, as in use bind #1 when going to Src #1 to Dest #1,
   and bind #2 when going from Src #1 to Dest #2. (This was brought
   up by Cliff)

2. Extensibility of NAT MIB - specifically the Config Table, such
   that support for other protocols (TCP, UCP are the currently 
   supported ones) can be added later w/o modifications to the
   NAT MIB (this one was brought up by Randy Turner).

Both these are being currently addressed, and should reflect in the
next revision of the MIB. Further, we would be moving over to using
InetAddressType and InetAddress (as mandated by RFC 2851).

-Rajiv.

Matt Holdrege wrote:
> 
> At 03:01 PM 10/18/2001, Scott  Bradner wrote:
> >We would actually like to close the WG now.
> 
> If I'm the only one objecting, then go ahead and close it.
> 
> >The MIB may take quite a while since some rather basic thinking
> >needs to be done on what a NAT MIB should do.  We do not see
> >that there has been enough going on relative to that in the WG
> >to warrant keeping the WG open.
> 
> This is the first I've heard of any basic issues with the NAT MIB. Have
> there been any issues brought up on the list that I might have missed? I
> thought the NAT MIB was pretty much done.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nat mailing list
> nat@ietf.org
> http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat

_______________________________________________
nat mailing list
nat@ietf.org
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email