On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 5, 2012, at 21:08 , Masataka Ohta <mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> 
> wrote:
>
>> Jimmy Hess wrote:
>>
>>> NAT would fall under design flaw, because it breaks end-to-end
>>> connectivity, such that there is no longer an administrative choice
>>> that can be made to restore it  (other than redesign with NAT
>>> removed).
>>
>> The end to end transparency can be restored easily, if an
>> administrator wishes so, with UPnP capable NAT and modified
>> host transport layer.
>>
>
> This is every bit as much BS as it was the first 6 times you pushed it.
>

Yep.

Reply via email to