Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>
> <LD> The labels NAT_PREVENTION, NAT_PREVENTED are confusing.
> For a little while I thought they are the same, but realize
> they are different. NAT_PREVENTION seem to mean that the
> sender is guaranteeing/indicating that there is no NAT.
> Perhaps, NAT_NOTSUPPORTED or NAT_ABSENT or something like that
> might be more appropriate. Instead of NAT_PREVENTED,
> NAT_PRESENT or NAT_DETECTED might be more appropriate. The
> Initiator then can compare its claim from its state that
> NAT_ABSENT against NAT_PRESENT to detect that its claim is
> incorrect. </LD>
Hmm... here the sender of the NAT_PREVENTION payload (initiator)
is informing the responder that its policy is not to use paths
that contain NATs. If the responder notices that a NAT is
present anyway, the request fails with error code NAT_PREVENTED.
But maybe we could figure out better names for these payloads.
How about "NAT_PREVENTION_FAILURE" instead of "NAT_PREVENTED"?
It would perhaps tell more clearly that it's an error
indiciation?
Or NO_NAT_POLICY and NAT_POLICY_ERROR?
Best regarts,
Pasi
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.