[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NAT and IPSEC INCOMPATIBLE???



Pat,

The accessability provided by NAPT (Network Address Port Translator)
is not any less than the accessibility provided by a host with a 
single address. 

Further, Bidirectional-NAT does not preclude inbound connections.
It simply does address multiplexing - optimal use of limited
addresses available.

I suggest you take a look at <draft-ietf-nat-terminology-03.txt>
prior to spreading misinformation. 

cheers,
suresh

> 
> And just to make matters worse, I could not have anyone connect directly to me
> thanks to NAT (i.e. ftp, SIP, etc).
> 
> PatC
> 
> > > > By the way, there are certain markets where NAT is a requirement (such as
> > > > running IP to the guest rooms in hotels)
> > 
> > Until the hotels get more customers like Pat, who say that...
> > 
> > > hmm... so I HAVE to trust my hotel? What kind of customers are they looking
> > > for? If they are looking for the commuter, then NAT is a bad thing since I
> > > will want to encrypt my data back to my corporate network.
> > 
> > And by then they'll be looking for another alternative.
> > 
> > > > and IPSec is also extremely high profile.   It would help everyone out if
> > > > there was a built-in method to scale arbitarily
> > > > large for address translated IPSec connections - just with ESP, I don't
> > > > think that AH is as important to these users.
> > 
> > And that alternative is IPv6.  ESP works just fine over that.
> > 
> > Dan
> 
> 
>