nanog mailing list archives

Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query)


From: David Miller <dmiller () tiggee com>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:07:06 -0400



On 9/4/2012 2:22 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com>

I am confused... I don't understand your comment.

It is regularly alleged, on this mailing list, that NAT is bad *because it 
violates the end-to-end principle of the Internet*, where each host is a
full-fledged host, able to connect to any other host to perform transactions.

We see it now alleged that the opposite is true: that a laptop, say, like
mine, which runs Linux and postfix, and does not require a smarthost to
deliver mail to a remote server *is a bad actor* *precisely because it does
that* (in attempting to send mail directly to a domain's MX server) *from 
behind a NAT router*, and possibly different ones at different times.

I find these conflicting reports very conflicting.  Either the end-to-end
principle *is* the Prime Directive... or it is *not*.


The end-to-end design principle pushes application functions to
endpoints instead of placing these functions in the network itself.
This principle requires that endpoints be *capable* of creating
connections to each other.  Network system design must support these
connections being initiated by either side - which is where NAT
implementations usually fail.

There is no requirement that all endpoints be *permitted* to connect to
and use any service of any other endpoint.  The end-to-end design
principle does not require a complete lack of authentication or
authorization.

I can refuse connections to port 25 on my endpoint (mail server) from
hosts that do not conform to my requirements (e.g. those that do not
have forward-confirmed reverse DNS) without violating the end-to-end
design principle in any way.

Thus it is a false chain of conclusions to say that:
- end-to-end is violated by restricting connections to/from certain hosts
[therefore]
- the end-to-end design principle is not important
[therefore]
- NAT is good

...which I believe is the argument that was being made? ...

Ref - http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf


Cheers,
-- jra



Current thread: