IETF Logo Mail Archive

Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us> Thu, 05 February 1998 20:52 UTC

Delivery-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 15:52:29 -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 PAA17794 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 15:52:27 -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 MAA16923; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:45:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by server.livingston.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) id MAA07492 for nat-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:51:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199802052049.UAA09443@orchard.arlington.ma.us>
To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>
cc: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>, Cheng_Chen@3com.com, Dan Nessett <Dan_Nessett@tdc.3com.com>, ipsec@tis.com, nat@livingston.com, paul_douglas@3com.com, raj_bhatia@3com.com, ken_araujo@3com.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 5 Feb 1998 12:47:46 -0500 (EST) ." <199802051648.IAA29194@puli.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 15:48:27 -0500
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us>
Sender: owner-nat@livingston.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us>

Yakov,

You seem to be characterizing this as a "ipsec vs. NAT" debate.

It's really a "security vs. NAT" debate.  

Over the past 10 years, I've worked on a number of different systems
with integrated crytographic security which, among other things, often
cryptographically protect IP addresses from modification... either at
the network layer, like ipsec, or above it in the application layer.

Every single one of these systems is broken by NAT.  Every single one.
This says quite a bit about the violence which NAT does to the goal of
securing the Internet.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email