Subject: Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:39:08 EDT

> At 09:59 AM 4/20/00 -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> >This draft is very incomplete and in my opinion not ready for prime
> >time.  The working group has in the past requested lists of protocols
> >and applications which do not work with NATs.  I have replied
> >discussing those items for which I am most familiar:
> 
> [...snipped]
> 
> I think everyone agrees that the draft is incomplete. I've been begging for 
> input for over a year now in the NAT WG meetings and on the NAT list. I've 
> also asked every IETF WG chair for input. Our hope is that through IETF 
> last call, we will get enough contributions such as yours to get a 
> reasonable document together that folks can reference.

I am not on the NAT mailing list; nor do I attend NAT working group
meetings.  I consider NATs to be architecturally unsound and that the
IETF and IESG should in no way endorse their use or development.

All of the energy and money being spent on NATs could and should be
spent to begin the migration to IPv6 instead.  It is my hope now that
Windows 2000 supports IPSec that enough pressure will be applied to
halt the deployment of NATs

    Jeffrey Altman * Sr.Software Designer * Kermit-95 for Win32 and OS/2
                 The Kermit Project * Columbia University
              612 West 115th St #716 * New York, NY * 10025
  http://www.kermit-project.org/k95.html * [email-masked]

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:55:55 -0700

>IETF and IESG should in no way endorse their use or development.

Just so there is no more confusion, in no way is the IETF endorsing the use 
or development of NAT. You've completely missed the point of the draft. 
It's purpose is to clearly point out the problems that NAT causes to a 
given set of protocols.

Also please do not steer this thread towards a NAT bashing-fest. We need to 
complete this document and we need constructive input to this draft. Thanks 
again for your original input.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:08:20 -0400

> complete this document and we need constructive input to this draft.

unfortunately, the major premise of the draft is flawed.  there 
are far too many problems to NAT, affecting far too many applications, 
to make a usefully complete list of the applications that are affected.  
and the list is constantly growing larger.

finally, the notion that one can fix NAT's problems with ALGs is
not only incorrect, it's impractical for NATs to support even
the applications for which ALGs are feasible.

Keith