[136563] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Feb 3 14:34:49 2011
To: Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:41:26 EST."
<483E6B0272B0284BA86D7596C40D29F9011F76964E94@PUR-EXCH07.ox.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:28:32 -0500
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1296761312_6170P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:41:26 EST, Matthew Huff said:
> Owen, can you point to a application protocol that is broken via NAT that
> isn't a p2p protocol or VoIP?
The only reason FTP works through a NAT is because the NAT has already
been hacked up to further mangle the data stream to make up for the
mangling it does.
I'm told that IPSEC through a NAT can be interesting too... And that's
something I'm also told some corporations are interested in.
--==_Exmh_1296761312_6170P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFNSwHgcC3lWbTT17ARAs0QAJ9sgIOPdBxTZ7CZ+qoPIImj+4Iq7gCaA/zE
Eq3enwVEz51Mv8CbVSvMNJQ=
=Vonc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1296761312_6170P--
