Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic (Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Historic Status) to Informational RFC

[Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>]

On Feb 28, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> The core assumption here seems to be that NAT is a bad thing so  
> lets get rid of NAT rather than trying to make NAT work.
> ...
> The only protocol which really cares about the source and  
> destination IP addresses is IPSEC and we have discovered that is a  
> design error.
I guess you haven't been around the applications that have trouble  
with this very much. Any client-server application works fine across  
a NAT, as long as it is the client that initiates the connection. I  
refer you to the history of RSIP, the complexities of peer2peer  
applications, Melinda Shore's frequent attempts at a generalized  
firewall traversal methodology, and all the other places in which  
applications that require a means of connecting to a device that has  
no address in your favored address space at the time you want to  
connect to it.
Dismissing the notion using a bunch of fallacies isn't a very strong  
argument.