nanog mailing list archives
Re: moving to IPv6
From: Pedro Marques <roque () cisco com>
Date: 03 Nov 1997 21:11:12 -0800
randy () psg com (Randy Bush) writes:
if global name to 'address' resolution is desired, then the directory mechanism protocols, currently dns, need to be translated at address and/or name domain boundaries. some nats currently do this.
That is smaller problem compared to translating application protocol information.
are there other protocols/data which *must* be translated at boundaries?
There are a full bunch of protocols that do include addresses FTP control information for instance... For FTP when translating between v4 and v6 the NAT box has to translate commands as well as addresses... PORT <-> LPRT PASV <-> LPSV etc...
should kink such as cuseeme be left to die?
Newer videoconferencing software does the same mistakes unfortunatly... H.323 for instance requires snooping of several streams to be able to translate packets. Pedro.
Current thread:
- Re: moving to IPv6, (continued)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Vijay Gill (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Nikos Mouat (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Joe Shaw (Nov 03)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Dorian R. Kim (Nov 03)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Brett Frankenberger (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Vadim Antonov (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Randy Bush (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Jerry Scharf (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Pedro Marques (Nov 03)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Phil Howard (Nov 01)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Alex Bligh (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Phil Howard (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Alex Bligh (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Randy Bush (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Alex Bligh (Nov 02)
- Message not available
- Re: moving to IPv6 Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Phil Howard (Nov 02)
- Message not available
- Re: moving to IPv6 Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 02)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 03)