And, to follow up on my own posting (sigh), RFC 3235 and 3027 are
Informational... we have no STD, and no BCP, that come up when you
search for NAT or Network Address Translator, so... perhaps there is
no community consensus document that says what the community consensus
appears to be, and the best thing to do is to Google "NAT end-to-end"
and leave the result as an exercise for the reader?
There was a discussion on IETF ML in April and May of 2000 on
and, vint, for example, wrote:
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 06:20:48 -0400
From: "vinton g. cerf" <vcerf(_at_)MCI(_dot_)NET>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt
that's right - they use iMODE on the DOCOMO mobiles. iMODE and
WAP seem to have that in common: a non-IP radio link protocol
and an application gateway. Of course, this limits the applications
to those that can be "translated" in the gateway, while an end to
end system (such as the Ricochet from Metricom) would allow
essentially any application on an Internet server to interact
directly with the mobile device because the gateway would merely
be an IP level device, possibly with NAT functionality.
So, according to vint, NAT is less evil than gateway translation.
Of course, the technical reality not tainted by commercialism is
that NAT translate protocols at the IP, transport and application
But, you can't expect much help against NAT from IETF.