> If DNSSEC were deployed, I see no reason why SAs could not be > bound to domain names. Well, there are all those load-distributing hacks -- Akamai and others. But I bet they could come up with a huge flesh-tone bandaid so you would continue not to notice. On a good day.
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Geoff Huston
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Matt Crawford
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Randy Bush
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! John Collis
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! RJ Atkinson
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Mike Fisk
- RE: NATs *ARE* evil! RJ Atkinson
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: naming RJ Atkinson
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Matt Crawford
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Bill Sommerfeld
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Francis Dupont
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Ken Raeburn
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Theodore Y. Ts'o