--- Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
I'm being a bit extreme but the point is that just because something is
architecturally bad doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, since these days it
takes us years to make any architectural enhancements.
perhaps architectural impurity alone shouldn't keep you from doing
something, but the fact that something violates fundamental design
assumptions should cause you to do some analysis and hard thinking
about the likely consequences of using them. and if you are in the
business of selling boxes that violate the design assumptions you
shouldn't misrepresent these to your customers.
most of these hacks can be employed in ways that are mostly harmless,
but knowing when they are harmless and when they will cause harm
can be quite difficult. NATs seemed mostly harmless when they were
first deployed; now they're a huge problem.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmm... Depends on one's perspective. Do not underestimate the
timeliness of a solution. Timeliness is operational reality.
It could have been catastrphic had we not had a timely solution
with no addresses to issue. NAT is the reason we have had this much
time to work on IPng.
Keith
regards,
suresh
=====
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com