> >> However, I do agree that anybody designing a protocol in
> the last 3-4
> >> years *should* have designed it to be firewall and NAT friendly.
> >> (Yes, I know that can be difficult in practice. I guess
> that's today's
> >> "Welcome to Reality").
> >
> >> > In any event, I've always personally been of the opinion that
> >> > if applications don't work in the face of NAT, then the
> >> > applications themselves are functionally deficient and should be
> >> > fixed. :-)
> >>
> >> ...and [NAT] must be taken into consideration when
> designing protocols.
> >>
> >> .... New protocols should, in my opinion,
> provide descriptions
> >> of how they work or don't work with NAT. If there is a
> reason why they
> >> aren't going to work (carriage of port or address information), a
> >> description of how to build an Application Layer Gateway
> (ALG) should be
> >> provided.
Could someone please take a look at draft-welzl-ptp-01.txt, and tell me
how this protocol could be turned NAT friendly. I doubt that it's possible.
I expect some people to yell "bad design" then; but how would you provide
this functionality? Certain things simply can't be done if we strictly
stick with an end2end point of view - and I would of course be glad if
someone tells me I'm wrong and comes up with a solution :)
Regards,
Michael Welzl
