Unintended Consequences of NAT Deployments with Overlapping Address Space
RFC 5684

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Cullen Jennings) (was Discuss) Yes

Comment (2009-09-09)
No email
send info
Thank you to the authors and RFC Ed for the changes made to this document.

Magnus Westerlund Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

Comment (2009-06-02 for -)
No email
send info
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?

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection