[149945] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Common operational misconceptions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Fri Feb 17 02:04:58 2012
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:03:32 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <F889C600-7AEE-47A3-8C63-012B3DA90968@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Owen DeLong wrote:
> I believe he understands just fine. However, his point (and I agree with him) is that
> if you are behind NAT, it isn't full end-to-end functionality, even if it does allow some
> degraded form of end-to-end connectivity with significant limitations which are not
> present in the absence of NAT.
I'm not interested in your own definitions on end-to-end
something.
For correct terminologies, you should read Saltzer's
original paper.
As for "in the absence of NAT", RFC3102 may also be helpful
to you.
Abstract
This document examines the general framework of Realm Specific IP
(RSIP). RSIP is intended as a alternative to NAT in which the end-
to-end integrity of packets is maintained.
Masataka Ohta
