Hi,
I enjoyed reading your draft, and I'm looking forward to discussing it
in Philly. (We've asked Jonathan if he'd present at TSVAREA or INTAREA.)
On 2008-2-13, at 15:44, ext Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
I wrote this because of a discussion that happened during behave at
the
last IETF meeting in Vancouver. There was a presentation in the behave
working group on NAT ALG for SCTP - when run natively over IP - and I
found the entire conversation surreal.
A big driver for SCTP was for use a signaling protocol. Other SDOs are
using SCTP for signaling in their network architectures, and are also
now introducing NAT functionality at controlled places in these
architectures. This is why I believe and have argued that an IETF BCP
that documents how to correctly NAT SCTP is the right thing to
produce. (And, FWIW, DCCP. There's some interest in that as well, but
not such an immediate one as for SCTP.) As a SIP-area person, this
mode of operation should be familiar to you.
Will this BCP make SCTP available behind a home NAT? Nope. But it
provides a specification that people can refer to who design network
architectures that are more tightly controlled than the end user
Internet, i.e., where people can define and then require their NATs to
have this functionality.
Lars
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf