Unintended Consequences of NAT Deployments with Overlapping Address Space
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
(Cullen Jennings) (was Discuss) Yes
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 value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
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?