"David R. Conrad" wrote: > > Christian, > > > Increasing our reliance on the DNS is definitely not a good idea. > > Hmmm. This would appear to be the exact opposite of what the IETF has done > with IPv6. > > Rgds, > -drc Well now. There is some truth in that (A6 records are quite complex...) but NAT has generated some serious and complex dependencies on DNS too, not to mention various load sharing techniques. Brian
- To address or NAT to address? Graham Klyne
- Re: To address or NAT to address? Matt Crawford
- Re: To address or NAT to address? Keith Moore
- Re: To address or NAT to address? Christian Huitema
- Re: To address or NAT to address? Cary FitzGerald
- Re: To address or NAT to address? David R. Conrad
- Re: To address or NAT to addr... Keith Moore
- Re: To address or NAT to address? Christian Huitema
- Re: To address or NAT to address? Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: To address or NAT to address? David R. Conrad
- Re: To address or NAT to address? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: To address or NAT to addr... Yakov Rekhter
- Re: To address or NAT to ... Charles E. Perkins
- Re: To address or NAT... Christian Huitema
- Re: To address or NAT... Bill Fink
- Re: To address or NAT... Charles E. Perkins
- Re: To address or NAT... Bill Fink
- Re: To address or NAT... David R. Conrad
- Re: To address or NAT... Peter Deutsch
- Re: To address or NAT... Dave Crocker
- Re: To address or NAT... Peter Deutsch