On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:38 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
When applications that e.g. include point of attachment addresses in the
app protocol break in the presence of NATs, one should probably ask
whether the NAT is breaking the app, or whether the NAT is making it
clear that the app was actually already broken.
It's perfectly reasonable for applications to include IP addresses and port
numbers in their payloads,
as this is the only way that the Internet Architecture defines to allow
applications to make contact
with particular processes at particular hosts. Some might see this as a
deficiency in the Internet
Architecture, but that's the best that we have to work with for now.
If anything, the fact that "this is is the only way that the Internet
Architecture defines..." doesn't make it reasonable.
So basically you're arguing to impair the ability of applications to function,
just so that network operators can futz around with addresses.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf