RE: Towards closure on NAT traversal.

[Mark Baugher <mbaugher@cisco.com>]

>
>
>I think now we all agree that NAT traversal problem need to be solved.
>However, at the San Diego meeting a gentleman from your company chimed,
>"We will just wait for IPv6." I presume that is not your company policy
>(anymore).

Why do you expect that every company employee spouts company policy at 
every WG meeting at every IETF?  You expect too much.


> > I agree - I chair midcom and am working on additional approaches to
>the
> > problem.  If you're arguing that the IPSec working group should figure
>out
> > how to get non-PASV FTP across NATs, that's just silly.
> >
> > Melinda
>
>In the end, somebody has to provide the full solution and that is all
>customers care about. If it is all done at one place it is far more
>attractive than a split solution.
>
>A split solution requires too many changes everywhere. People "might"
>digest changes to IKE, IPsec, and NATs. However, if you start proposing
>changes to applications as well, you will be in trouble as that would
>inconvenience your customers a bit too much.
>
>That is why we are advocating a single solution and want to leave the
>applications untouched. The fact that our solution does not require
>changes to IKE or NATs, makes it more attractive.
>
>Also, figuring out how to get non-PASV FTP across NATs is not silly, but
>it is important. That is how mirror ftp sites get updated. Because we
>solve this problem, it has made several of our clients very happy.
>
>BTW, PORT mode usage accounts for over 77% of the users on Microsoft
>site.
>
>Site statistics from Microsoft site (9:17 am 4 March 2002)
>   PASV : 249596
>   PORT : 845979
>
>Regards,
>Jayant
>www.trlokom.com