> It looks like NAT's are a fact of life, and we > just need to figure out how to deal with them. well, that's the question after all - how best to deal with them? I claim that NATs are architecturally bankrupt and we should therefore devote as little energy as possible toward legitimizing NATs and/or trying to make them any more complex than they already are. let's not pretend that they don't exist, or that they don't have some valid uses. but let's not pretend that they are viable in the long term either. Keith
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- RE: NATs *ARE* evil! Chris Millikin
- RE: NATs *ARE* evil! David Higginbotham
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! J. Noel Chiappa
- 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