Subject: [BEHAVE] Nitpicking regarding draft-perkins-sourceipnat-00

From: "Rémi Denis-Courmont" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:23:08 +0200

Hello,

I'd just like to point out that HTTP is a very very bad example of use for 
sourceipnat. The HTTP Host header has solved the same problem years ago and is 
at the heart of all mutualized (dirt cheap or free) HTTP hosting services. For 
dedicated HTTP servers, a reverse proxy can solve the problem all the same, 
without DNS or IP-layer hacks. SMTP and SIP are similarly non-issues.

Then HTTP/TLS has a problem with legacy HTTP clients that don't so Server Name 
Indication.

There are many IETF protocols that would be better examples: FTP, POP, IMAP 
comes to mind.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
Nokia Devices R&D, Maemo Software, Helsinki

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:30:43 -0700

Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> sourceipnat.

agreed.

> There are many IETF protocols that would be better examples: FTP, POP, IMAP 

for that matter, there are common conventions for each of FTP, POP and
IMAP to allow a single server to be shared among multiple domains or
even proxied to multiple backing servers.  generally what is done is to
append @hostname to the username when authenticating.

Keith