-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
<snip>
|
| Leif,
|
| I was speaking to the architectural issue, not the deployment one. None
| of the three plug and play boxes I have here with NAT capability has any
| inside DNS capability (either enabled by default or available to be
| turned on).
Exactly! Now why is that?
| It does sound like a recommendation to the effect of "if you are going
| to use NAT, or construct a NAT box, then an 'inside DNS' mechanism"
| would be a reasonable idea. And I would assume it would be an even
| better one if it made clear what the preferred way was to do an "inside
| DNS" -- I think there might be a couple of different ways to do it, and
| some might be less reprehensible than the others.
|
Of course (I am beeing intentionally obtuse) but isn't it quite unlikely
that any recommendation the we make at this point will have any impact
on how v4 NAT is deployed - we are after all talking about kazillions of
adsl modems, SOHO-routers etc etc? Do you believe that things will be
different with v6 NAT, I.e what are the interoperability problems a NAT
vendor will have unless they implement NAT 'correctly'?
Cheers Leif
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE/jbek8Jx8FtbMZncRArnHAKCYL6ofsHt7AQHefjm7wx1XpD1dWwCgiMtZ
6HnYUNLxyduWc0MLHSB/OGw=
=wMD6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----