Valdis Kletnieks writes:
| On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:53:30 +0100, Sean Doran said:
| > Nobody really constrains protocols from carrying a local IP address
| > around any more than anyone constrains from putting local addresses
| > into a text message. It's just that communicating by naively replying
| > to such an embedded address is unlikely to work.
|
| The problem with NAT is the same problem as people who put locally usable
| addresses in their .signature files - the NAT *doesnt* fix those up when
| it becomes a non-local address BY VIRTUE OF PASSING THROUGH THE NAT.
Is it just me, or do these two message fragments have identical semantics?
If so, I'm having major trouble with the idea of constraining something
by letting it pass through in an un-rewritten form...
Maybe the problem here is that "protocols" is too large; I meant things
that ride around as a client of the IP network layer.
In any event, the solution is a standard representation of "who" that
is readily convertible into "where" in many different types of transport
networks. IP addresses no longer qualify on that front, no matter what
your NAT politics are like.
Sean.