[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (NAT) Re: Interactions between IPSEC and NAT
Jim,
Thanks for your understanding. I am not trying to be political,
just putting things in perspective. As for solutions that do not
include NAT, I am not averse to them. I will certainly try to offer
whatever I can towards providing myriad of solutions to customers.
Thanks again.
cheers,
suresh
>
> Suresh,
>
> I don't see belaboring these points further. I will agree that we
> disagree on the values and capabilities of NAT and thats fine, rather
> than provide anymore counter arguments, because I believe the point of
> this mail list and group is to develop the specifics that relate to that
> which can be standardized in the IETF to support NAT technology.
>
> So lets start having that discussion because I am an engineer who is
> interested and will build a NAT implementation as one solution to leave
> IPv4 and move on to IPv6 and avoid private addresses as ONE customer
> "choice" to accomplish this task.
>
> As far as other solutions that don't use NAT I take your mail this is
> not the place to work on that, though you put that politically quite
> well as other comments you have made now and in the past, which is good
> as your the chair and need to be nice to us. Thank You.
>
> Soooo... I will connect offline with a few folks and suggest we have a
> BOF potentially of alternative solutions to NAT. My work on NNAT is for
> v4-v6 transition and that clearly belongs in the NGTRANS WG I agree. But
> my engineering work on this has made me realize as an implementor I can
> implement alternatives to NAT and I will see if others in our
> community are interested in, in another forum. Including for IPv4
> regardless of IPv6. So now I am also interested in solutions that can
> avoid NAT in IPv4 too.
>
> Others can send me mail PRIVATELY if you interested in such a BOF for
> the L.A. meeting.
>
> thanks for working to clear this up,
> /jim
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
> 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.
>
References: