|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...)
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 11:57:24AM -0700, Mike Batchelor wrote: > Well of course, that was my point. Where do you draw the line? The packet > as received is not identical to the packet as it was sent, even when NAT > is not involved. Along the way, various things get modified, the packet > is encapulated, unwrapped, re-encapsulated, TTLs get decremented, ... all > things that are necessary and part of the process of getting the packet > to its destination. NAT just has more necessary things to change. I'm not > defending NAT, I dislike it as much as the next clueholder, I am just > taking the devil's advocate position for the sake of discussion. Encapsulation does not modify the encapsulated packet. It just sends a new packet that happens to have a data portion which can be interpreted by the remote end as being a packet which it should forward from there. TTL decrement A) was intended to be rewritten on a per-packet basis, by design, and B) is not identity information in any fashion. Please name one part of a "normal TCP connection" (IE, without anything in between but, say, some copper wire and ethernet NICs carrying IP directly, and a router or two doing straight per-hop forwarding) which both gets rewritten, and has *any* form of identity, or for that matter, wasn't explicitly intended to be rewritten per-hop by the origional spec. -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [email protected] http://www.lightbearer.com/~lucifer
|