Keith Moore wrote:
I've been personally writing apps that had to deal with NAT brain-damage for 15 years. The opinions of your Berkeley professors and "IT security" colleagues don't mean jack.
And I appreciate those apps. I especially appreciate the stateful NAT implementations by Cisco and Juniper. But what you're proposing, deprecating NAT, is fundamentally different. What apps are we talking about anyhow? P2P or anything depending on SIP or SCTP? There's no business case for allowing those apps or protocols to establish stateless inbound connections anywhere in my network. Roger Marquis _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
