Re: Action item from yesterday's meeting

Suresh,

--On 24.11.2004 8:37 Uhr -0800 Pyda Srisuresh wrote:

> Martin,
>
> Melinda suggested that I come up with an example to illustrate that the current
> sematics and MIB is problematic for certain types of NATs. I did this with FTP
> and PORT command in twice NAT scenario. You claim the FTP example is not real.
> That simply is not true. FTP is a common ALG used with NATs and is very real.
> That you dont like the FTP ALG would not make the problem go away. There is a
> real problem with the MIB, the way it is. And, there is a simple fix to it.
>
> Hope you understand. Thanks.

I do understand that you solve the problem of ftp using the PORT command.
But you are solving a problem, that has been solved already a long time ago.
There is the ftp PASV command and every decent ftp client supports (if not
prefers) it.  Therefore, I still do not see a reason for changing the
semantics.

Thanks,

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek        [email protected]       Tel: +49 6221 90511-15
NEC Europe Ltd.,       Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221 90511-55
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.netlab.nec.de


> regards,
> suresh
>
> --- Martin Stiemerling <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Cullen,
>>
>> --On Dienstag, 23. November 2004 17:31 Uhr -0800 Cullen Jennings
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> |
>> | I have not been participating closely I the group so I may have a complete
>> | clueless opinion here but ... It seems that people are continuing to
>> | deploy things like twice NAT, if we can make the protocol work in these
>> | cases without causing major complexity or big issues to the protocol, why
>> | wouldn't we? It seemed to me that Srisuresh was proposing that a few
>>
>> Just to make it clear: The MIDCOM MIB already supports twice-NATs and the
>> semantics did so from the beginning.  So in this sense there is anyway no
>> change needed.
>>
>> | simple changes could make the protocol be about the same in the case we
>> | currently have plus make it usable for a few more cases.
>>
>> The case presented do not represent a real case in my opinion.
>>
>>   Martin
>>
>> |
>> |
>> | On 11/16/04 10:19 AM, "Melinda Shore" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> |
>> |> I'm intending to get this issue closed in the next week (or sooner,
>> |> if possible).  Juergen and Suresh have presented their concerns, and
>> |> if there are other people who have opinions or questions or even
>> |> just want to indicate how they're leaning, that would be a big help.
>> |>
>> |> Thanks,
>> |>
>> |> Melinda
>> |>
>> |>
>> |> _______________________________________________
>> |> midcom mailing list
>> |> [email protected]
>> |> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> | _______________________________________________
>> | midcom mailing list
>> | [email protected]
>> | https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> midcom mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
>>
>
>
> =====
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> midcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom