On Oct 28, 2010, at 09:47, Roger Marquis wrote: > > What's wrong is remote apps that [...] initiate those inbound connections to > [...] topologies unabstracted by NAT.
Let's leave aside the parts of your argument I've excised with ellipses. What precisely is wrong with applications that expect to initiate flows to destinations in topologies that have not been obfuscated away by a network address/port translator? This question is relevant to the mailing list topic because I-D.mrw-nat66 doesn't provide any local topology obfuscation. I think it would help to understand what you need that the NAT66 draft as currently composed assumes you're going to get from somewhere else. -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> member of technical staff, communications engineering _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
