On 2011-03-03 10:49, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
> Thus wrote Brian E Carpenter ([email protected]):
>
>> On 2011-03-03 09:30, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
>> ...
>>> Which applications will have trouble with address stability and
>>> provider independence, thus requiring you to make the benefits of NPTv6
>>> line up with the applications you want to use??
>> The usual ones - those that for whatever reason have explicit
>> dependency on the IP address of the peer.
>
> i.e. they will have trouble with PI addresses also?
No, why?
The FTP PORT command is the oldest instance of the problem, and SIP
has a serious version of the problem. NPTv6 will need application layer
support for cases like these, but since the same support is needed
today for NAT44 and will be needed for NAT64, this doesn't seem to
be a new problem. Section 5 of the draft covers it.
IPsec also has a problem with NPTv6, but I suppose RFC 3948 applies.
Brian
> because they have a problem with the addresses being stable and provider
> independent?
>
>> We've known for 15 years
>> that this is bad design, but it hasn't stopped us doing it.
>
> regards,
> spz
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
