[e2e] 0% NAT - checkmating the disconnectors
dhc2 at dcrocker.net
Tue Mar 7 10:12:53 PST 2006
James Kempf wrote:
>> Does anyone have any good thoughts on how to collectively create the
>> next generation *Inter* Net - one that actually provides the
>> interoperability that all of us old codgers dreamed was possible when
>> Licklider, Taylor, Englebart, etc. first imagined it and Vint Cerf and
>> Bob Kahn made it happen?
> If you want it to be secure and open, keep the NATs out but put in place
> a legal/social/commercial solution for security, kind of an Internet
> CSI. One thing I think we should have learned from the Cold War is that
> depending only on technical measures for security just leads to arms races.
Let's consider something completely different:
Assume that a NAT represent more than just a device to do address
administration. Assume that it is part of a function the represents a desire of
intrnet operators to have a clear distinction between inside and outside.
To some extent, routers do the same thing. (Yes, NATs are more complex and are
stateful, but I'm going for a basic issue, here, so please just tolerate my
Note that routers do address translation too. They change the current
link-layer address to be a new one. (Dontcha just luv layers?)
For all of the implied lessons in distinguishing internal routing from exterior
routing, we seem to resist re-applying the lesson to other parts of the
I've come to believe that most of the approach to dealing with NATs almost comes
for free if we do locator/identifier properly and provide a useful 'session'
layer (or equivalent function with the app layer.)
More information about the end2end-interest