"J. Noel Chiappa" wrote:
> From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
> The reason that we are explaining (once again) why NAT sucks is that
> some people in this community are still in denial about that
The person who's most in denial around here is you - about how definitively
the market has, for the moment, chosen IPv4+NAT as the best balance between
cost and effectiveness.
Get a grip. We all know you don't like NAT. You don't need to reply to
*every* *single* *message* *about* *NAT* explaining for the 145,378,295th
time how bad they are.
Legend tells us Cato, a Roman senator during the Punic Wars, finished
every speech he made in the Senate with the words "Carthage Must Be
Destroyed". It didn't matter if it was a speech about defense, or
monetary policy or the Roman water works. His one-eyed devotion to this
task was, well, determined. Keith sort of puts me in mind of Cato...
- peterd (CMBD)
PDF: I've decided that as punishment for joining in "Yet Another
Flamewar About NATs" (YAFAN), I must now append something suitable to
every message.