The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query)

Masataka Ohta mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Thu Sep 6 00:01:50 CDT 2012


Owen DeLong wrote:

>> then, if transport layer of the host is modified to perform
>> reverse translation (information for the translation can be
>> obtained through UPnP):
>>
>> 	(local IP, global port) <-> (global IP, global port)
>>
>> Now, NAT is transparent to application layer.

> Never mind the fact that all the hosts trying to reach you have no
> way to know what port to use.

Quote from <draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00.txt>

   A server port number different from well known ones may be specified
   through mechanisms to specify an address of the server, which is the
   case of URLs.

> http://www.foo.com fed into a browser has no way for the browser
> to determine that it needs to contact 192.0.200.50 on port 8099
> instead of port 80.

See RFC6281 and draft-ohta-urlsrv-00.txt.

But,

	http://www.foo.com:8099

works just fine.

>> The remaining restrictions are that only TCP and UDP are supported
>> by UPnP (see draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00.txt for a specialized NAT box
>> to allow more general transport layers) and that a set of port
>> numbers available to the application layer is limited (you may
>> not be able to run a SMTP server at port 25).

> You're demanding an awful lot of changes to the entire internet to

All that necessary is local changes on end systems of those who
want the end to end transparency.

There is no changes on the Internet.

> This is every bit as much BS as it was the first 6 times you pushed it.

As you love BS so much, you should better read your own mails.

						Masataka Ohta




More information about the NANOG mailing list