[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: 3gpp-analysis-04: necessity for protocol translators in sect 2.3
This text is fine with me.
Hesham
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 4:22 AM
> To: Soliman Hesham
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: 3gpp-analysis-04: necessity for protocol translators in
> sect 2.3
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Soliman Hesham wrote:
> > > modify the last paragraph to (for example):
> > >
> > >
> > > Translators may be needed in some cases when the
> > > communicating nodes
> > > do not share the same IP version.
> >
> > => I don't have a strong opinion on this but
> > a reader might ask "what do you do in the other cases?"
> > Because you use "some" above after assuming two
> > nodes with different IP stacks.
>
> If this is a worry, we could expand it a bit, maybe like:
>
> Translators may be needed in some cases when the
> communicating nodes
> do not share the same IP version; in others, it may be
> possible to
> avoid such communication altogether. Translation can
> actually happen
> at Layer 3 (using NAT-like techniques), Layer 4 (using a TCP/UDP
> proxy) or Layer 7 (using application relays).
>
> (or just remove "in some cases", it's not really a problem for me.)
>
> > Actually, I think maybe we should not associate
> > translation with ALGs, after all, they don't actually
> > translate.
>
> If we'd do this, the above would hold without modifications.
> I'm not sure
> whether having proxies and such under translators is too big
> a stretch or
> not (when you consider it from the end-to-end point of view, they
> certainly do something..). Removing it from here would
> certainly require
> some new text and shift balances around quite a bit.
>
> --
> Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
>