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

Pyda Srisuresh <suresh@livingston.com> Sat, 07 February 1998 00:44 UTC

Delivery-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 19:44:56 -0500
Return-Path: owner-nat@livingston.com
Received: from bast.livingston.com (bast.livingston.com [149.198.247.2]) by ns.ietf.org (8.8.7/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id TAA18961 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 19:44:55 -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 QAA00823; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:31:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by server.livingston.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) id QAA01718 for nat-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:36:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Pyda Srisuresh <suresh@livingston.com>
Message-Id: <199802070036.QAA01712@server.livingston.com>
Subject: Re: (NAT) Re: Interactions between IPSEC and NAT
To: bound@zk3.dec.com
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 16:40:24 -0800
Cc: suresh@livingston.com, Andrade@netcom.com, perry@piermont.com, Dan_Nessett@tdc.3com.com, ipsec@tis.com, nat@livingston.com
In-Reply-To: <199802062306.AA11924@wasted.zk3.dec.com> from "bound@zk3.dec.com" at Feb 6, 98 06:06:01 pm
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-nat@livingston.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Pyda Srisuresh <suresh@livingston.com>

Jim, 

    Thanks for your understanding. I am not trying to be political,
just putting things in perspective. As for solutions that do not 
include NAT, I am not averse to them. I will certainly try to offer
whatever I can towards providing myriad of solutions to customers.
Thanks again.

cheers,
suresh
> 
> Suresh,
> 
> I don't see belaboring these points further.  I will agree that we
> disagree on the values and capabilities of NAT and thats fine, rather 
> than provide anymore counter arguments, because I believe the point of 
> this mail list and group is to develop the specifics that relate to that 
> which can be standardized in the IETF to support NAT technology.  
> 
> So lets start having that discussion because I am an engineer who is
> interested and will build a NAT implementation as one solution to leave
> IPv4 and move on to IPv6 and avoid private addresses as ONE customer
> "choice" to accomplish this task.
> 
> As far as other solutions that don't use NAT I take your mail this is
> not the place to work on that, though you put that politically quite
> well as other comments you have made now and in the past, which is good
> as your the chair and need to be nice to us.  Thank You.
> 
> Soooo... I will connect offline with a few folks and suggest we have a
> BOF potentially of alternative solutions to NAT.  My work on NNAT is for
> v4-v6 transition and that clearly belongs in the NGTRANS WG I agree.  But 
> my engineering work on this has made me realize as an implementor I can
> implement alternatives to NAT and I will see if others in our
> community are interested in, in another forum.  Including for IPv4
> regardless of IPv6.  So now I am also interested in solutions that can
> avoid NAT in IPv4 too.
> 
> Others can send me mail PRIVATELY if you interested in such a BOF for
> the L.A. meeting.
> 
> thanks for working to clear this up,
> /jim
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
> 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.
> 

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