NAT and Middlebox Tunnels
draft-renkel-middlebox-tunnels-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Jim Renkel | ||
| Last updated | 2002-06-20 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This Internet Draft compares Network Address Translation (NAT) and Realm Specific IP (RSIP) tunnels, and the advantages and disadvantages of each. It then shows how the advantages can be combined by implementing NAT as a tunnel in hosts, while minimizing the disadvantages. Based on the advantages of middlebox tunnels in general and implementing NAT as a middlebox tunnel in particular, it then recommends that the Middlebox Communications architecture protocol (MIDCOM) be amended to support tunnels between hosts and middleboxes. This .txt version of this internet draft is identical to the PostScript version (draft-renkel-middlebox-tunnels-00.ps) except that the figures from the PostScript version have been deleted. Please refer to the PostScript version for these figures.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)