[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IPSEC and NAT
At 08:06 PM 8/25/97 -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>
>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.
Ted,
I wish it were so simple. I am one of the co-authors of 1918. In fact I
was the principle instigator for it at the Huston IETF. I have countless
suppliers that just could not get enough address space. We blew it with
IPv6; too little too late. Then there is the routing complexity. I need
several paths out of my company, and the routing expertise to do that is
too expensive.
The issues are very complex. You live (basically) on one nice campus. I
have dozens of sites to help support. If I had IPsec and Ipv6 when we
started ramping up in '91 things would be a lot different.
Got to hop into the car and get over to AutoTech. Things are going well
enough; we have 'learned' a lot.
And, yes, NAT is outside of this workgroup's scope, but it is important
that the discussion start here, just like compression started here. IPsec
changes the playing field and we have to go back and re-work many things.
Who is ready to tackle IPsec and Class of service???????
Robert Moskowitz
Chrysler Corporation
(810) 758-8212
Follow-Ups:
References: