Hi Brian,
regarding lack of simplicity: Different solutions build on different
assumptions. If you make specific assumptions then the solution is much
simpler.
There is a recent document that aims to compare some of the NAT /
firewall protocol proposals:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eggert-middlebox-control-survey-01.txt
It is not yet finished but might give you an idea what the different
assumptions of some of the proposals are.
Ciao
Hannes
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-07-14 00:07, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/13/07 5:43 PM, "michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com" <michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I believe that we need a more general protocol for hosts inside a site
perimeter to communicate with the perimeter gateways and request
services from them.
We've actually got several of them, starting with SOCKS (which
could have been extended), continuing through RSIP, on to midcom
and SIMCO. Note that "midcom" was so named under the assumption
that whatever was done would be extensible to other sorts of
middleboxes than firewalls and NATs
We could spend an awful lot of time talking about why none
of them has caught on, but I think it's fair to say that that
failure has not been caused by a perceived lack of generality.
Maybe by a lack of simplicity?
draft-woodyatt-ald-01 is a recent proposal.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf