If there were no real routers and the world still used bang paths you
wouldn't be thinking about overlay networks the way you do. Does your
thinking fall under the same category of fallacy?
By the way, I think you have missed the meaning of raison d'etre. There is
a necessity, a problem, somebody responds, solves the problem. NAT (or
TCP/IP, or Plan 9) emerges.
--On Saturday, November 15, 2008 11:57 PM -0700 andrey mirtchovski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5. If you need NAT weigh the options of doing it. It may turn out that
importing /net is the best choice for your application. Or it may turn
out otherwise. /net has a raison d'etre--regular NAT, too.
If regular NAT hadn't been invented you wouldn't be thinking in terms
of regular NAT, therefore you wouldn't be "needing NAT".
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. (you'll find it under "logical fallacy" on
wikipedia)
