Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > - without "transparent" caches > > Do you mean interception proxies, in WREC terminology? Yes. > > > - no port restrictions > > And no protocol type restrictions > > > - no NATs > > How about adding IPv6 support? Good idea. > > > > (and whatever other abominations one might want to add to this list). > > Seems like a good role for ISOC, for example :-) > > The ISOC isn't a trade association, which is where such seals > of approval (and the associated b*ke-offs) tend to come from. Maybe the IPv6 consortium or whatever they call themselves could do this, since IPv6 is a (the only?) realistic alternative to NATs. -- Henning Schulzrinne http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Daniel Senie
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Keith Moore
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Matt Holdrege
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Matt Holdrege
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Matt Holdrege
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Keith Moore
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Jon Crowcroft
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Henning G. Schulzrinne
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Matt Holdrege
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users John Stracke
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Keith Moore
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Sean Doran
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Keith Moore
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Sean Doran
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Sean Doran
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Keith Moore
- Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users Harald Alvestrand