Re: (NAT) Re: Interactions between IPSEC and NAT

"Alexei V. Vopilov" <alx@elnet.msk.ru> Thu, 05 February 1998 20:04 UTC

Delivery-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 15:04:41 -0500
Return-Path: owner-nat@livingston.com
Received: from bast.livingston.com (bast.livingston.com [149.198.247.2]) by ietf.org (8.8.7/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id PAA16946 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 15:04:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from server.livingston.com (server.livingston.com [149.198.1.70]) by bast.livingston.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA15647; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:57:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by server.livingston.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) id MAA03918 for nat-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:03:16 -0800 (PST)
From: "Alexei V. Vopilov" <alx@elnet.msk.ru>
To: Ben Rogers <ben@ascend.com>, bound@zk3.dec.com
Cc: Alex Alten <Andrade@netcom.com>, perry@piermont.com, Dan Nessett <Dan_Nessett@tdc.3com.com>, ipsec@tis.com, nat@livingston.com
Subject: Re: (NAT) Re: Interactions between IPSEC and NAT
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 22:51:12 +0300
Message-ID: <01bd326f$69090780$db253ac3@ppalx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Sender: owner-nat@livingston.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Alexei V. Vopilov" <alx@elnet.msk.ru>

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Rogers <ben@Ascend.COM>
To: bound@zk3.dec.com <bound@zk3.dec.com>
Cc: Alex Alten <Andrade@netcom.com>; perry@piermont.com <perry@piermont.com>;
Dan Nessett <Dan_Nessett@tdc.3com.com>; ipsec@tis.com <ipsec@tis.com>;
nat@livingston.com <nat@livingston.com>
Date: 5 февраля 1998 г. 20:51
Subject: Re: (NAT) Re: Interactions between IPSEC and NAT


[ . . .]

:Which makes it sound as if they're planning to be handling such issues.
:I know that one of the important points mentioned in the Washington was
:that if NAT were going to fly as a WG it would need to work around the
:security interactions by modifications to the way we do NAT instead of
:modifications to the way we do security.
:
:ben


If this is a 'hint', it makes NAT people to just give up with
IPsec since they have nothing to do after an IPsec transform is done.
If IPsec wg ignores the NAT one, that actually would affect the customer
base for both technologies.

--Alexei


-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.