Matt Holdrege wrote: > The terminal room and wireless network at IETF meetings are > *working* networks. They aren't for playing around. We've > been there and done that and it isn't fun. I am not suggesting playing around. Either the products are useful and solve the problem or they are not. Since a large number of people believe that NAT solves our problems, I have to conclude there must be useful products. The alternative is that these people believe NAT is fine because they never have to use it to realize that the products don't really work in that environment. If the latter is the case then the debate should end, NAT should be declared historic, and all IPv4 focused WGs should be shut down. Tony
- Re: Making the IETF meeting network more representative of... Randy Bush
- RE: Making the IETF meeting network more representati... Tony Hain
- Re: Making the IETF meeting network more representati... Matt Holdrege
- Re: Making the IETF meeting network more represen... Matt Holdrege
- RE: Making the IETF meeting network more represen... Matt Holdrege
- Re: Making the IETF meeting network more representati... Dave Crocker
- Re: Making the IETF meeting network more representati... Sean Doran
- Re: Making the IETF meeting network more representati... JIM R FLEMING
- Re: Making the IETF meeting network more representati... Matt Holdrege
- IETF network & VPNs RJ Atkinson
- Re: IETF network & VPNs Matt Holdrege
- RE: IETF network & VPNs James S. Binder
- RE: Making the IETF meeting network more representati... Tony Hain