[159833] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CGN fixed/hashed nat question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Wed Jan 23 17:54:22 2013
In-Reply-To: <510007C5.1000607@viagenie.ca>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:53:47 -0500
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Simon Perreault
<simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> wrote:
> Le 2013-01-23 16:37, William Herrin a =E9crit :
>> In fact, were someone to use those "worst current practices" to build
>> some generic p2p VPN software, even old games could leverage it to
>> allow someone behind a CGN to host.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements
>
> A CGN that obeys these requirements will allow NAT traversal by virtue of
> having an Endpoint-Independent Mapping behaviour. That is the BCP. Not po=
rt
> prediction.
Even better. So, architecturally P2P compatibility with CGNs is a
solved problem waiting only for the software to shake out. Expect some
growing pains in the first generation CGNs which largely vanish in the
second.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--=20
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
