At 06:00 PM 9/6/2005, you wrote:
>> The IETF has been doing extensive work on NAT traversal, have a look
>> and see if you can reuse some existing mechanism.
> All mechanisms used with the possible exception of an additional SNMP
> table will be re-used from existing IETF work (mostly SSH with help
> from the fact that it's based on TCP).
Perhaps then it's time we consider mandating a "NAT-Traversal" section to
standards track documents much like IANA and Security considerations have
become common place to this day. Anything that's not covered by the BEHAVE
work already done should be covered there, as the IETF seems to have indeed
accepted the proliferation and widespread acceptance of NAT functionality.
Actually, a "Firewall Considerations" section would make sense. That
section might indeed be a good place to discuss NAT issues, if any,
but firewall interactions with protocols exist in many cases where
NAT is in use. Though many have expressed their hope that NAT does
not persist in the IPv6 world, there should be no doubt in anyone's
mind that firewalls will be with us permanently.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf