RFC 3027: Protocol Complications with the IP Network Address Translator
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
The purpose of this document is to identify the protocols and applications that break with NAT enroute. The document also attempts to identify any known workarounds. This document attempts to capture as much information as possible, but is by no means a comprehensive coverage. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC3027
- Published
- January 2001
- Authors
- M. Holdrege; P. Srisuresh
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- tsv
- Pages
- 20
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 2519A Framework for Inter-Domain Route AggregationCurrent
February 1999
- RFC 2338Virtual Router Redundancy ProtocolObsoleted
April 1998
- RFC 3768Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)Obsoleted
April 2004
- RFC 2269Using the MARS Model in non-ATM NBMA NetworksCurrent
January 1998
- RFC 1971IPv6 Stateless Address AutoconfigurationObsoleted
August 1996
- RFC 3260New Terminology and Clarifications for DiffservCurrent
April 2002
- RFC 2474Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 HeadersUpdated
December 1998
- RFC 2966Domain-wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-ISObsoleted
October 2000
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?