suspect the astroturf agenda, particularly given how NAT-detractors:
A) have yet to provide a detailed rebuttal to the many uses of NAT
One way NAT-detractors could back-up their claims of "harm" would be to
answer Chris Engel's request for an example of where NAT would break
something that statefulness would not.
SIP, SCTP and P2P are examples of where statefulness is both required for
security and where the same statefulness permits such applications and
protocols to work seamlessly with NAT.
Given the lack of any rebuttal to these examples it would seems that
NAT-detractors either want these protocols to be allowed past firewalls
without statefulness and/or do not understand the security problems of
statelessness. If this is not the case perhaps someone could explain
why?
Roger Marquis
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
