Keith Moore writes: | but I'm fairly convinced that we are *far* better off with a global | name space for network attachment points, which are exposed and | visible to hosts and applications, than we are with only locally | scoped addresses visible to hosts and applications Out of curiosity, do you (as a hosts and applications person) really care what is in use in the network(s) between the network attachment points in question, if the edges of the network all have the properties in your lines above? Sean.
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Jon Crowcroft
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Sean Doran
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Angelos D. Keromytis
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Perry E. Metzger
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Daniel Senie
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Perry E. Metzger
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Sean Doran
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Kevin Farley
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Tony Dal Santo
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Jeffrey Altman
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Geoff Huston
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Geoff Huston
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Matt Crawford
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Randy Bush
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! John Collis