North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > Why write a protocol that way? Just to prove NAT sucks? > > > > Charles > > > No, because they were either written before NAT existed and > tried hard to conform to the end2end principles of Internet Architecture > or they were written after NAT existed and tried hard to conform to the > end2end principles of Internet Architecture. > > NAT violates the end2end principles of the Internet Architecture > by placing one or more policy abstraction layer(s) between the endpoints. > > That said, NAT is a tool in the tool box. I'd like to think that > its worth the effort to try and recover true end2end. What is "true end2end"? I just want to understand what that means. NAT rewrites certain packet data fields (src addr, src port, sometimes mac addr). So does a ordinary router (ttl decrement). One breaks end2end, the other does not. What is the difference? I think you will find that a definition of "end2end" is a lot more squishy than you want it to be. > > --bill > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBO5kKJUksS4VV8BvHEQLP/ACgovrim/k0P2vyogKbozKUUUMnKPAAnRZs n7zCvrBAaT1aN47YEQMZg3+3 =GOFQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|