North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful)
On Sun, Nov 02, 1997 at 12:31:45PM -0500, Alan Hannan wrote: > > Yup, it could, but as I noted to Paul, in the cases Sean is advocating, > > the client and the NAT box may not be within the same span of > > administration, either. IE: no, you may _not_ trust the NAT op. > > In today's internet, the DNS management, the routing > administration, and the ADM engineer are all outside of central > administration. > > This is analagous to the case you bring up, and yet we work well. > > Proxy aggregation of address space occurs, and yet the world goes > on. > > That the NAT administration would be different from that of the > flow endpoints is orthagonal to the discussion. No, I'm afraid I don't think that's true. This is a question of _trust_, and if I don't wish to allow the operator of a NAT box to proxy my trust in a nameserver operator, there really isn't any good way around that. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth [email protected] Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
|