The point being that if you have an arbitrary bunch of firewalls and NATs between any two points, then you are forced into telephone-like "call set-up" scenarios, which don't really scale to large groups, specially when the application consists of sporadic messages to arbitrary destinations. -----Original Message----- From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 6:01 PM To: Bill Manning Cc: Keith Moore; David T. Perkins; Michael Richardson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables > e.g. it takes (at least) two to tango... or peer. "at least". yes. Keith
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Jon Crowcroft
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Joe Touch
- First bit of IP Addresses Anshul Jain
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Sean Doran
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Christian Huitema
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Bill Manning
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Bill Manning
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Keith Moore
- RE: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Fleischman, Eric W
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables David T. Perkins
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Ed Gerck
- head hurting [was Re: [midcom] WG scope/delive... Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Dave Crocker