Any pro-NAT arguments that try to cite specific protocols that happen to work with NAT, or expect their opponents to enumerate applications that don't work with NAT, are inherently irrelevant, and not worth responding to.
Why am I not surprised that Keith is opposed to discussion of technical specifics.
The purpose of the Internet is not to support only a few specific protocols that you might have happened to have heard of today, or that might happen to work through NAT.
Keith's definition of "The purpose of the Internet" is a theoretical one and bears little resemblance with the net as it exists today. As such it is well represented by NAT66. Roger Marquis _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
