Architectural Implications of NAT
draft-iab-nat-implications-09
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC |
Document |
Type |
|
RFC Internet-Draft (iab)
|
|
Author |
|
Tony Hain
|
|
Last updated |
|
2013-03-02
(latest revision 2000-08-10)
|
|
Stream |
|
Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
|
|
Formats |
|
pdf
htmlized (tools)
htmlized
bibtex
|
Stream |
IAB state
|
|
(None)
|
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
RFC Editor Note |
|
(None)
|
IAB T. Hain
Internet Draft Microsoft
Document: draft-iab-nat-implications-09.txt August 2000
Category: Informational
Architectural Implications of NAT
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026 [1].
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of
six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
"This memo provides information for the Internet community. This
memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution
of this memo is unlimited."
Abstract
In light of the growing interest in, and deployment of network
address translation (NAT) RFC-1631, this paper will discuss some of
the architectural implications and guidelines for implementations.
It is assumed the reader is familiar with the address translation
concepts presented in RFC-1631.
Hain Informational - Expires January 2001 1
Architectural Implications of NAT August 2000
Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................1
1. Introduction....................................................3
2. Terminology.....................................................5
3. Scope...........................................................7
4. End-to-End Model................................................7
5. Advantages of NATs..............................................9
6. Problems with NATs.............................................11
7. Illustrations..................................................13
7.1 Single point of failure.......................................13
7.2. ALG complexity..............................................14
7.3. TCP state violations.........................................15
7.4. Symmetric state management..................................16
7.5. Need for a globally unique FQDN when advertising public
services..........................................................17
7.6. L2TP tunnels increase frequency of address collisions.......18
7.7. Centralized data collection system report correlation.......19
8. IPv6...........................................................19
9. Security Considerations........................................21
10. Deployment Guidelines.........................................23
11. Summary.......................................................24
12. References....................................................25
13. Acknowledgments...............................................27
14. Author's Addresses............................................27
Hain Informational - Expires January 2001 2
Architectural Implications of NAT August 2000
1. Introduction
Published in May 1994, written by K. Egevang and P. Francis, RFC-
1631 [2] defined NAT as one means to ease the growth rate of IPv4
address use. But the authors were worried about the impact of this
technology. Several places in the document they pointed out the need
to experiment and see what applications may be adversely affected by
NAT's header manipulations, even before there was any significant
operational experience. This is further evidenced in a quote from
the conclusions: 'NAT has several negative characteristics that make
it inappropriate as a long term solution, and may make it
inappropriate even as a short term solution.'
Now, six years later and in spite of the prediction, the use of NATs
is becoming widespread in the Internet. Some people are proclaiming
NAT as both the short and long term solution to some of the
Internet's address availability issues and questioning the need to
continue the development of IPv6. The claim is sometimes made that
NAT 'just works' with no serious effects except on a few legacy
applications. At the same time others see a myriad of difficulties
caused by the increasing use of NAT.
Show full document text