You do not consider IPv6 an option?
At 07:55 AM 12/14/2000 +0100, Sean Doran wrote:
>Hi -
>
>I should have waited until Perry had spoken, because now that he has
>pointed out the extreme cost of NAT, I have seen the light!
>
>NATs are expensive. They have gross side-effects. Even Noel Chiappa,
>my guru, says that they are an architectural hack.
>
>So, why are people deploying them?
>
>They are so awful, that it must only happen when people have NO OTHER OPTION.
>
>So, I have to wonder, why is it that they have no option?
>Isn't it the job of the Internet Architecture Board to be addressing
>this serious problem, since the IETF's solution doesn't seem to be working???
>
> Sean.
Michael W. Condry
Director, Internet Strategy
2111 N.E. 25th Ave.
JF3-206
Hillsboro, OR 97124-5961
Phone: (503) 264-9019
FAX: (503) 264-3483
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
