>> I would go further - first to define by exclusion, secondly to define >> a new class of providers (according tro common uisage) so that >> discussion can proceed > > My intention is to provide a semi permanent definition as an Informational > RFC. > > It is important to make the definition protected by bogus opinions > of various bodies including IETF. of course you will exuse the providers if we continue to be perverse and find new business models. randy
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-0... Jon Crowcroft
- RE: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-0... Brijesh Kumar
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-0... Matt Holdrege
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complicati... Masataka Ohta
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-compli... vinton g. cerf
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-co... Masataka Ohta
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protoco... Jon Crowcroft
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protoco... Masataka Ohta
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protoco... Jon Crowcroft
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protoco... Masataka Ohta
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protoco... Randy Bush
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protoco... Keith Moore
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protoco... Patrik Fältström
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protoco... Keith Moore
- RE: draft-ietf-nat-protoco... aboba
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protoco... Masataka Ohta
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protoco... Keith Moore
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protoco... Masataka Ohta
- RE: draft-ietf-nat-protoco... Brijesh Kumar
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protoco... Peter Deutsch in Mountain View
- Re: draft-ietf-nat-protoco... Keith Moore