--- Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
<... stuff deleted>
As we have done with the NAT WG, it is
often useful to accurately document the drawbacks of a
common practice as well as to encourage exploration of
From my point of view there were significant forces within the
NAT group attempting to keep the extent of these drawbacks from
being accurately documented and to mislead the readers of those
documents into thinking that NATs worked better than they do -
for instance, the repeated assertions that NATs are "transparent".
Keith - I argued to keep the term "transparent routing" in the
NAT terminology RFC (RFC 2663). The arguments I put forth were
solely mine and not influenced by my employer or anyone else.
I donot know who else you are refering to as the "significant
forces in NAT group attempting to mislead readers into
thinkining NATs are transparent".
Clearly, your point of view is skewed against NATs. It is rather
hypocritical and unfair to say that those opposed to your view
point are misleading the readers, while you apparently do not
purport to mislead.
So I'm not sure that this is a good model on which to base future work.
NAT WG has made substantial progress in the form of demystifying
the FUD surrounding NATs. We still have work to do and intend to stay
focussed to continue presening a balanced view point.
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.