Welcome to the Internet and the IETF. ;-)
It appears that you've answered your own question; an 'informational' RFC
[1627] was obsoleted by a 'best current practice' RFC [1918]. It stands
to reason that a BCP endorses use of reserved addresses, and the only
way to accomplishg this and maintain connectivity to the remainder of
the global Internet is to use a NAT, or application layer gateway which
provides NAT functionality.
- paul
At 08:36 PM 10/19/96 -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:
>
>I fail to see how you can obsolete an "informational" RFC like that (1627
>is a position statement, not a standard), but in any case it remains a
>useful explanation for many arguments against NAT... whether or not
>they're valid... and in fact is still the best pointer to such arguments
>I'm aware of.
>
>Network Working Group E. Lear
>Request for Comments: 1627 Silicon Graphics, Inc.
>Category: Informational E. Fair
> Apple Computer, Inc.
> D. Crocker
> Silicon Graphics, Inc.
> T. Kessler
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> July 1994
>
>
>Network Working Group Y. Rekhter
>Request for Comments: 1918 Cisco Systems
>Obsoletes: 1627, 1597 B. Moskowitz
>BCP: 5 Chrysler Corp.
>Category: Best Current Practice D. Karrenberg
> RIPE NCC
> G. J. de Groot
> RIPE NCC
> E. Lear
> Silicon Graphics, Inc.
> February 1996
--
Paul Ferguson || ||
Consulting Engineering || ||
Herndon, Virginia USA |||| ||||
tel: +1.703.397.5938 ..:||||||:..:||||||:..
e-mail: pferguso @
cisco .
com c i s c o S y s t e m s
Follow-Ups:
|
|
