Re: NATs *ARE* evil!

If DNSSEC were deployed, I see no reason why SAs could not be
bound to domain names.


Well, there are all those load-distributing hacks -- Akamai and
others.  But I bet they could come up with a huge flesh-tone bandaid
so you would continue not to notice.  On a good day.

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
*Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, (continued)* Message not available Message not available *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, V Guruprasad* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, John Stracke* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, V Guruprasad* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Denis Mcmahon* *Re: NATs ARE* evil^H^H^H^Hmpls!*, Jon Crowcroft* *Re: NATs ARE* evil!*, Theodore Y. Ts'o* 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*

Previous by Date:	Re: naming, RJ Atkinson
Next by Date:	IETF logistics, RJ Atkinson
Previous by Thread:	Re: naming, RJ Atkinson
Next by Thread:	*RE: NATs ARE* evil!*, Chris Millikin*
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]