The IAB has talked about NAT. A WG has produced a bunch of
RFCs about NAT. NAT is very widely deployed and comes in
10 different flavors. NAT has a bunch of architectural
ugliness and technical problems. So?
How about some lemonade? An Internet draft that says
something new about NATs would be a lot more helpful than
rehashing the same old arguments.
Cheers,
David
I think we often end up talking about NATs because NATs are a symptom
that our architecture has fundamental unsolved problems that we so far
have failed to address (or that the market has failed to adopt, but
it's closer to the former, I think.)
The SPAM problem is another one of those recurring discussions that
never seems to be resolved, for similar reasons.
If we had a workable solution in hand for either problem,
there would be
little point in our talking about them. As it is, we keep revisiting
them in the hope that some new idea will emerge, or that some bit of
denial about those problems will go away.
Keith