Re: Free NAT for NT?

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () research att com>]

In message <37D6BA90.DDA2D96A () enternet se>, Mikael Olsson writes:
>

> I think I have a bone or two to pick with you here, Carl...
> Well actually I'd like to pick them with T. Hain of Microsoft,
> but since he's not listening and you are, and you seem
> to agree with him.... >:]
>
> <rant size=666 target=_ms color=brightred>
>
> First a couple of first-glance observations
>
> - Isn't it ironic that a Microsoft employee wrote that paper?
>   Especially taking into consideration all the "protocols"
>   they have designed that require nothing less than
>   complete port 0-65535 access between the machines involved 
>   in a conversation? NetMeeting is probably the prime example.
>   Also note that you cannot logon to a domain if you 
>   are NATed.

There are a lot of problems with your note (which I've forwarded to Tony Hain);
for now, let me just address this point.  The draft under discussion is an 
IETF document, which Tony wrote in his role as a member of the Internet 
Architecture Board.  The IETF's attitude is quite explicit -- members
participate as individuals, not as employees of particular companies.  There 
is no contradiction between what Tony wrote and what Microsoft does; they're 
quite separate.  To the extent that the paper reflects any institutional view, 
it's that of the IAB -- most, if not all, IAB members agree with it.  (That 
most emphatically includes me.)

                --Steve Bellovin