RE: NAT

["Burden, James" <JBurden () caiso com>]

John,

Besides RFC1918 you can read RFC1631 - The IP Network Address Translator
(NAT). K. Egevang & P. Francis.
     May 1994. (Format: TXT=22714 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL).

I am not aware of a pro/cons white paper yet.  However, VPN (example:
IPSEC) technologies are costly and kludgey working with NAT.  If IP
headers are encrypted then a tunnel would have to begin and end any
where NAT is used.

Jim

James Burden            Phone - 916.351.2243
Security Engineer               Page - 916.814.2563
California ISO                  Fax - 916.351.2181
http://www.caiso.com    Email - jburden () caiso com
41DF 0E4C 26E0 2FD3 8C81  A260 5C40 280E B4AE 7420
____________________________________________
   To Teach is to Learn   - Aaron Nimzovich
____________________________________________


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Appel, John [SMTP:AppelJ () 1st-annapolis com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 12:05 PM
> To:   'firewall-wizards () nfr net'
> Subject:      NAT 
>
> Is there a FAQ or similar document covering the pros/cons/caveats of
> NAT?
>
> TIA,
>
> John