RE: NAT Traversal

[Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>]

>>>>> "Chinna" == Chinna N R Pellacuru <pcn@cisco.com> writes:

 Chinna> I think that there seems to be a big problem with people who
 Chinna> want to only casually look at this problem of NAT and
 Chinna> IPsec. I think that these casual observers tend to assume
 Chinna> that any and every possible scenario of NATs and IPsec will
 Chinna> work with some solution. You'll have to first take the time
 Chinna> to understand what is feasible, and what is not. Once you
 Chinna> have come up with a set of scenarios in which it is feasible
 Chinna> to solve this problem, then you have to pick a technique that
 Chinna> will only work in those scenarios.

I guess I'm confused about the process.

It looked like you were proposing a solution, or at least components
of one.  Several people started saying "but what about x?  What about
y?"  That seems reasonable.

Now, if you want to start with a problem statement, and from there
derive a solution that addresses the scenarios in the problem
statement, that sounds fine.  But it didn't look like you were doing
that.

If your answer to each note questioning some case is to ECO the
(unstated) problem statement to exclude the case being asked about,
that's certainly one way to proceed, but I'm not sure it will yield a
meaningful solution...

	paul