Re: NATs *ARE* evil!

the problems with NAT are not generally due to implementation.
they are inherent in the very idea of NAT, which destroys the
global Internet address space.

Keith

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
*Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, (continued)* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, itojun* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Masataka Ohta* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Kurt Erik Lindqvist* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Dennis Glatting* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Scott Brim* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Keith Moore* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Valdis . Kletnieks* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Jon Crowcroft* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Fred Baker* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, M Dev* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Keith Moore* <= *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Matt Holdrege* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Michael Richardson* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Perry E. Metzger* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, J. Noel Chiappa* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Tony Dal Santo* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Dennis Glatting* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, James Aldridge* Message not available *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Geoff Huston* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, David W. Morris* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Keith Moore*

Previous by Date:	WLAN, Teemu Rinta-aho
Next by Date:	Re: Congestion control, Gabriel Landowski
Previous by Thread:	*Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, M Dev*
Next by Thread:	*Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Matt Holdrege*
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]