On Nov 1, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Roger Marquis wrote: >> 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.
I'm opposed to wasting my time discussing irrelevant technical specifics, especially with people who insist on perpetuating a state of denial. >> 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. No, it''s just that the internet is far more diverse than you're willing to admit. Keith _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
