IXFR, NOTIFY, and NAT

[Eric S. Johansson]

David Botham wrote:
> 
>>Why qualify this? Not using NAT is always the Right Thing To Do.
> Jim, are you saying that NAT is not a good idea when used in conjunction
> with DNS, or NAT is bad in general?

Jim is IMO just taking a classical geek stand on the subject.  The 
argument against address translation is that it's "violating" the 
integrity of the packet and rewriting headers and occasionally the contents.

My, just as arrogant, opinion is that if a protocol cannot survive 
traversing an address translation boundary without rewriting of the 
contents, then the protocol itself is broken, not the address 
translation technique.

Address translation is going to be with us for quite a while because it 
is a useful security feature of firewalls (but not a sufficient security 
feature by itself), conserves IPV4 address space, and, most importantly, 
helps us cope with nonnegotiable, shortsighted policies by bandwidth 
providers.

---eric