[41374] in North American Network Operators' Group
end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Batchelor)
Fri Sep 7 13:56:15 2001
From: "Mike Batchelor" <mikebat@tmcs.net>
To: <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com>
Cc: "\"NANOG (E-mail)\"" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:55:49 -0700
Message-ID: <LLEOLJEDPHOFANPCPKOMOEHECEAA.mikebat@tmcs.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <200109071630.QAA14585@vacation.karoshi.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> > Why write a protocol that way? Just to prove NAT sucks?
> >
> > Charles
>
>
> No, because they were either written before NAT existed and
> tried hard to conform to the end2end principles of Internet Architecture
> or they were written after NAT existed and tried hard to conform to the
> end2end principles of Internet Architecture.
>
> NAT violates the end2end principles of the Internet Architecture
> by placing one or more policy abstraction layer(s) between the endpoints.
>
> That said, NAT is a tool in the tool box. I'd like to think that
> its worth the effort to try and recover true end2end.
What is "true end2end"? I just want to understand what that means.
NAT rewrites certain packet data fields (src addr, src port, sometimes mac
addr). So does a ordinary router (ttl decrement). One breaks end2end, the
other does not. What is the difference?
I think you will find that a definition of "end2end" is a lot more squishy
than you want it to be.
>
> --bill
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO5kKJUksS4VV8BvHEQLP/ACgovrim/k0P2vyogKbozKUUUMnKPAAnRZs
n7zCvrBAaT1aN47YEQMZg3+3
=GOFQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
