The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query)
jra at baylink.com
Tue Sep 4 18:22:54 UTC 2012
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
> I am confused... I don't understand your comment.
It is regularly alleged, on this mailing list, that NAT is bad *because it
violates the end-to-end principle of the Internet*, where each host is a
full-fledged host, able to connect to any other host to perform transactions.
We see it now alleged that the opposite is true: that a laptop, say, like
mine, which runs Linux and postfix, and does not require a smarthost to
deliver mail to a remote server *is a bad actor* *precisely because it does
that* (in attempting to send mail directly to a domain's MX server) *from
behind a NAT router*, and possibly different ones at different times.
I find these conflicting reports very conflicting. Either the end-to-end
principle *is* the Prime Directive... or it is *not*.
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
More information about the NANOG