Bingo!
RFC 2775, RFC 2993
Brian
Dave Robinson wrote:
>
> What's the problem with locally significant addresses? Having thousands of
> 10 networks will never present a problem unless those networks at some point
> would like to talk to each other. Is that where this whole discussion is
> going (or coming from) - that ultimately the more NAT'ing we do, the more
> headaches we're creating for ourselves en route to true global connectivity?
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 10:56 AM
> To: Dave Robinson
> Cc: Keith Moore; M Dev; Sean Doran; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
>
> because in a NATted network the same addresses are used in different
> parts of the network. addresses are meaningless.
