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 ...)

  • From: Mike Batchelor
  • Date: Fri Sep 07 13:58:15 2001

-----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-----