From: Ted Hardie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >There are essentially three classes of network actor:
> client, server and peer. In any given interaction there is
> always an initiator and a responder. In most cases these
> correspond to the client and the server. In a peer-to-peer
> applicati
>
>There are essentially three classes of network actor: client, server and peer.
>In any given interaction there is always an initiator and a responder. In most
>cases these correspond to the client and the server. In a peer-to-peer
>application a given machine may be either an initiator or a r
12:02 PM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Hannes Tschofenig; Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Melinda Shore; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: The myth of NAT traversal, was: Re: IPv4 to IPv6
> transition
>
> >So terminating the application session at layer 7 and then
> originating a fre
On Jul 16, 2007, at 4:51 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Another problem is the lack of naming and lookup facilities. DNS
SRV records are probably going to be as good as it gets. VoIP
protocols and others that make use of embedded addresses actually
do have an advantage here, because they're ab
>So terminating the application session at layer 7 and then originating a fresh
>one at the point where the numbering scheme changes appears to me to be a
>simple and principled approach.
>
There are two ways I can read this, and I suspect I've got them both wrong. The
first is the "flag day" m
On 7/16/07 10:43 AM, "Joel Jaeggli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Widespread deployment of ALG's as mediators means you have to upgrade
> the network to support new applications. or applications are built on
> top of hostile tunnels over your alg infrastructure (sound familiar?).
> While some enterp
Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 7/16/07 6:29 AM, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The way I look at the problem we have a gateway issue similar to those that
>> we
>> used to have with smtp in the days of decnet sna etc.
>
> Maybe, but there are differences that make it harder. Ch
On Mon Jul 16 11:29:54 2007, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The way I look at the problem we have a gateway issue similar to
those that we used to have with smtp in the days of decnet sna etc.
The only difference is that we have both sides of the gateway
running IP albeit with different numberin
On 7/16/07 6:29 AM, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The way I look at the problem we have a gateway issue similar to those that we
> used to have with smtp in the days of decnet sna etc.
Maybe, but there are differences that make it harder. Chief
among these is that there wer
On 7/16/07 4:13 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe by a lack of simplicity?
Midcom and SIMCO are very simple. I think that there are a few problems,
which taken in aggregate make NAT "control" a hard sell. One is that
in even modestly complex networks either the applicati
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 01:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Melinda Shore; ietf@ietf.org
Subject:Re: The myth of NAT traversal, was: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
Hi Brian,
regarding lack of simplicity: Different solutions build on different
16, 2007 01:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Melinda Shore; ietf@ietf.org
Subject:Re: The myth of NAT traversal, was: Re: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
Hi Brian,
regarding lack of simplicity: Different solutions build on different
assumptions. If you make specific
Hi Brian,
regarding lack of simplicity: Different solutions build on different
assumptions. If you make specific assumptions then the solution is much
simpler.
There is a recent document that aims to compare some of the NAT /
firewall protocol proposals:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
On 2007-07-14 00:07, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/13/07 5:43 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe that we need a more general protocol for hosts inside a site
perimeter to communicate with the perimeter gateways and request
services from them.
We've actually got several of
Fact: There are NATs and stateful packet filtering firewalls that cause
problems for some applications.
It is quite likely that these devices will not go away.
Phillip also seems to have this view. I replied to him with regard to
the conclusion he draw. He seems to think that the right way to
On 7/13/07 5:43 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe that we need a more general protocol for hosts inside a site
> perimeter to communicate with the perimeter gateways and request
> services from them.
We've actually got several of them, starting with SOCKS (which
could
> ...and the only problem I have with the above is that the
> word MOST can be misleading. it's not as if most of the
> problems with NATs would go away if only all NATs were to
> suddenly support UPnP extensions to allow
> NAT traversal. that would certainly help, but significant
> brain-d
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> I don't think the IETF creates protocols that fail when used through a
> NAT when it's just as easy to make the protocol work though the NAT as
> is the case with FTP.
yes, but it's not "just as easy" to make FTP work through the NAT...at
least, not without losing the
18 matches
Mail list logo
