[41386] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jon Mansey)
Fri Sep 7 15:45:41 2001
From: Jon Mansey <jon_mansey@verestar.com>
To: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a0510032bb7bed2959e7a@[10.200.186.50]>
In-Reply-To: <EA9368A5B1010140ADBF534E4D32C728069E83@condor.mhsc.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:44:21 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 12:31 PM -0700 9/7/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>|> From: Jon Mansey [mailto:jon_mansey@verestar.com]
>|> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 11:57 AM
>|>
>|> I seem to be able to connect to port-forwarded services behind my
>|> office NAT firewall just fine from my laptop behind my home NAT box.
>|> Whats the problem?
>
>Can we talk ... using NetMeeting?
NM, along with IPsec are examples of apps that dont play well here,
but thats the point, they are apps that have not been written with
the real world in mind, ie that a good proportion of the edge these
days is behind NAT.
Who gives in first here, the app developers (or their marketing
depts) who decide that supporting NAT is important, or the NAT
developers who decide they can fix cuseeme or PPTP by re-writing the
packet data?
I am also playing devil's advocate here somewhat, we all know the
real solution to lack of IPv4 space, true end2end, and security lies
with IPv6, right?
jm
