RE: Issue 24: NAT prevention details (was: Review ofdraft-ietf-mobike-protocol-00)
"Pashalidis, Andreas" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mobike |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <ECDC9C7BC7809340842C0E7FCF48C393103E87@MCHP7IEA.ww002.siemens.net> |
Hi all, Regarding the naming of labels. IMHO, one cannot "prevent" a NAT (from being on a path). What one can do is *detect* the presence of a NAT, and, then, possibly *avoid* it (or, more precisely, avoid the continuation of the session). In terms of policies, one cannot have a policy that "prevents" NATs (from being present on a path). Instead, one can have a policy that mandates the *avoidance* of paths on which NATs have been detected. I believe that naming the labels using the above terms is more intuitive than using the term "prevention". Regards, Andreas -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 12:02 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [Mobike] Issue 24: NAT prevention details (was: Review ofdraft-ietf-mobike-protocol-00) 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 _______________________________________________ Mobike mailing list [email protected] https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike