-----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-----