[13369] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: moving to IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pedro Marques)
Tue Nov 4 00:18:18 1997
To: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Pedro Marques <roque@cisco.com>
Date: 03 Nov 1997 21:11:12 -0800
In-Reply-To: randy@psg.com's message of "1 Nov 97 19:55:00 GMT"
randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) writes:
> if global name to 'address' resolution is desired, then the directory
> mechanism protocols, currently dns, need to be translated at address
> and/or name domain boundaries. some nats currently do this.
That is smaller problem compared to translating application protocol
information.
>
> are there other protocols/data which *must* be translated at boundaries?
There are a full bunch of protocols that do include addresses
FTP control information for instance...
For FTP when translating between v4 and v6 the NAT box has to translate
commands as well as addresses...
PORT <-> LPRT
PASV <-> LPSV
etc...
> should kink such as cuseeme be left to die?
Newer videoconferencing software does the same mistakes unfortunatly...
H.323 for instance requires snooping of several streams to be able to
translate packets.
Pedro.
