[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IPSEC and NAT

To: tytso@MIT.EDU (Theodore Y. Ts'o)
Subject: Re: IPSEC and NAT
From: Dan.McDonald@Eng.Sun.Com (Dan McDonald)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 17:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <199708260006.UAA21135@dcl.MIT.EDU> from "Theodore Y. Ts'o" at Aug 25, 97 08:06:55 pm
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

> Unfortunately, there's a huge number of companies that very foolishly
> invested a large amount of money in NAT boxes, for better or for worse,
> and the auto industry in particular is apparently committed to spend
> millions to perpetuate this architectural eyesore, because apparently
> would be far more expensive to undo this mistake.
> 
> In any case, NAT is far outside the scope of this working group ---
> although wishing that the problem will go away won't make it so,
> especially if there's enough money in the market places forcing vendors
> to invent solutions that accomodates this fundamentally broken
> technology.

I could make some choice comments here about NAT being what happens when we
don't deploy the _right_ solution (IMHO the right solution is IPv6, or any
IPng) quickly enough.

I could also say that I hope we (and I cheerfully include myself in "we")
don't make the same mistake w.r.t. being too slow to deploy the _right_
solution.

Dan

Follow-Ups:

Re: IPSEC and NAT

From: hsw@columbia.sparta.com (Howard Weiss)

Re: IPSEC and NAT and the BIG PICTURE

From: "Scott G. Kelly" <scott@fet.com>

References:

Re: IPSEC and NAT

From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>

Prev by Date: Re: IPSEC and NAT
Next by Date: Re: order/nesting of IPsec headers (transport mode)
Prev by thread: Re: IPSEC and NAT
Next by thread: Re: IPSEC and NAT
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread