the fact that IPv* doesn't distinguish between who and where does cause some problems, but does not significantly impact the ability to route IPv* packets. even if you free IP addresses from any kind of role as host identity (which IMHO would be a good thing except that nobody has produced a satisfactory solution to the problem of mapping between the two), IP addresses will still need to be fairly stable, and there will still be a nontrivial amount of effort associated with renumbering as the network topology changes. Keith
- RE: NATs *ARE* evil! Chris Millikin
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Kevin Farley
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Scott Bradner
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Michael Richardson
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Paul Ferguson
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Perry E. Metzger
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Sean Doran
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Perry E. Metzger
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Sean Doran
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Geoff Huston
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Bradley Dunn
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Jon Crowcroft
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Jon Crowcroft
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore