> For clarification, is your comment just a positive remark about SCTP, > or is it suggesting that SCTP could work without hosts knowing their > global addresses. > (If it is the former, it doesn't go against what I wrote; if it is the > latter, I don't see how it can work.)
SCTP's ASCONF (Address Configuration Change) allows using 0 (::0, 0.0.0.0) to handle that case, as briefly described on page 6 of RFC5061 and page 17 of draft-ietf-behave-sctpnat-03. -d > Regards, > RD > > Le 2 nov. 2010 à 16:05, james woodyatt a écrit : > >> On Nov 2, 2010, at 01:25 , Rémi Després wrote: > >> ... > >> SCTP depends on hosts knowing their global addresses, and the same > holds for SHIM6. > >> Both are therefore incompatible with all variants of NAT66 as > specified today. > > > > Actually, SCTP uses IP addresses in pretty much the same way as TCP > and other connection-oriented transport protocols. From the > perspective of a NAT, however, the requirements to maintain state for > SCTP are quite a bit simpler than for TCP and other protocols. You only > need to hold onto the interior and exterior IP addresses of the > association endpoints, unified by the verification tag for each > association. No port translation is necessary-- it's not even helpful > for the purposes of address amplification. The addresses are amplified > in the 32-bit verification tag, not the port numbers. > > > _______________________________________________ > nat66 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
