Re: NATs *ARE* evil!


I will admit to some level of confusion
the subject line of this thread is "NATs *ARE* evil!" yet most of the
discussion is about the use of private addresses - something that 
a whole lot of firewalls also do - howcum the subject line is
not "NATs & Firewalls are evil!" or "use of private addresses is evil!"?

this focus on NATs seems to be an incomplete statement of the problem

Scott

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
*Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, (continued)* Message not available *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, V Guruprasad* Message not available *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, V Guruprasad* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Bill Sommerfeld* Re: naming, RJ Atkinson *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Matt Crawford* *RE: NATs ARE* evil!*, Chris Millikin* *RE: NATs ARE* evil!*, David Higginbotham* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, J. Noel Chiappa* *RE: NATs ARE* evil!*, Chris Millikin* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Kevin Farley* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Scott Bradner* <= *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Paul Ferguson* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Keith Moore* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Michael Richardson* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Keith Moore* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, J. Noel Chiappa* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Perry E. Metzger* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Sean Doran* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Keith Moore* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Perry E. Metzger* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Sean Doran*

Previous by Date:	Re: Congestion control, Fred Baker
Next by Date:	Re: Congestion control, Henning G. Schulzrinne
Previous by Thread:	*Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Kevin Farley*
Next by Thread:	*Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Paul Ferguson*
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]