Oliver wrote:
>>> You're basically redefining the term "end-to-end transparency" to suit
>>> your own
>> Already in RFC3102, which restrict port number ranges, it is
>> stated that:
>>
>> This document examines the general framework of Realm Specific IP
>> (RSIP). RSIP is intended as a alternative to NAT in which the end-
>> to-end integrity of packets is maintained. We focus on
>> implementation issues, deployment scenarios, and interaction with
>> other layer-three protocols.
>
> Just because something is documented in RFC does not automatically make it a
> standard, nor does it necessarily make anyone care.
That's not a valid argument against text in the RFC proof read by
the RFC editor as the evidence of established terminology of the
Internet community.
>> It's you who tries to change the meaning of "end to end transparency".
> Denial: not just a river in Egypt.
Invalid denial.
Masataka Ohta
