Fred Baker wrote: > I would agree. I am not opposed to the topic being discussed. But take > a look at this email thread. How much discussion is about NATs, their > proposed algorithms, and their proposed uses, and how much is about > "we don't want no stinkin' NATs"?
That would be because the proposed use creates an infrastructure based impediment to the end user where the dubious 'value' is only perceived by a few of the many transit administrations along the path. Working around this impediment requires complex & fragile 3rd party services to inform the endpoints about how to lie to their peer about who they are conversing with. Never mind the task of keeping that updated in real-time as the transit administrators change 'reality' on the fly, either due to transient failures, or arbitrary attempts to shift traffic around. This entire discussion is not about how to create a better environment for application development and deployment. It is simply about 'we can, so we want to no matter what the outcome will be'. Tony _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
