Unintended Consequences of NAT Deployments with Overlapping Address Space
draft-ford-behave-top-07
Yes
(Magnus Westerlund)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Jari Arkko)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Yes
Yes
(2009-09-09)
Unknown
Thank you to the authors and RFC Ed for the changes made to this document.
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-06-02)
Unknown
I'm confused by the example in section 3.2.4. Does the example discuss hijacking inbound mail, outbound mail or IMAP/POP access? Does this sentence from the second paragraph in 3.2.4 refer to NAT-2 in figure 1.1: Ideally, ISPs should not use NAT devices to provide connectivity to their customers. LSNs (large scale NATs) seem to be an inevitable example of deployments like NAT-2. Perhaps section 3.2.4 could be expanded to explain how NAT-2 and NAT-3 would be configured to accommodate inbound mail to a mail server on Host G?
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown