[13316] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Hannan)
Sun Nov 2 12:38:24 1997
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:31:45 -0500
From: Alan Hannan <hannan@bythetrees.com>
To: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us>
Cc: Tim Salo <salo@networkcs.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <19971102120143.48545@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us>; from Jay R. Ashworth on Sun, Nov 02, 1997 at 12:01:43PM -0500
> 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.
Perhaps you mean that the client won't know where to go because
the information is changed. Well, yes, that's what NAT does.
Send it to an agent aware of the change, or reference that
modulation, and it will come together.
-a
