RFC 2775, RFC 2993
Dave Robinson wrote:
What's the problem with locally significant addresses? Having thousands of
10 networks will never present a problem unless those networks at some point
would like to talk to each other. Is that where this whole discussion is
going (or coming from) - that ultimately the more NAT'ing we do, the more
headaches we're creating for ourselves en route to true global connectivity?
From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 10:56 AM
To: Dave Robinson
Cc: Keith Moore; M Dev; Sean Doran; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
Subject: Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
because in a NATted network the same addresses are used in different
parts of the network. addresses are meaningless.