Re: Action item from yesterday's meeting

Juergen,

If you are saying that FTP-ALG is not required, that is simply not true. Users
have the option to use PASV command. But, they dont have to. PORT and EPRT
commands are still supported FTP commands. NAT vendors donot mandate that users
use PASV command. 

PORT command simply illustrates the problem. Demonizing PORT commnd does not
make the problem non-existant. Have a good weekend.

regards,
suresh

--- Juergen Quittek <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


=====