Noel,
On 2007-03-04 22:36, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
> the problems that NAT causes, and that having suffcient address space
> (a.k.a. IPv6) solves
This comment seems to posit that insufficient address space is the only thing
driving deployment of NATs (other than the modestly effective firewalls that
NAT provides), and that's just not correct.
No, that wasn't my intention. It's more narrowly argued: the *problems* that
NAT causes are solved by having enough address space; the claimed security
features are actually firewall features. But that leaves a third piece: the
use of NAT to help with the multihoming and renumbering conundrum. However,
that I think belongs over on the RAM list.
Brian
Until the IETF fully understands and appreciates the forces which are driving
the deployment of NAT boxes - which have been spectacularly successful in the
marketplace, far more so than the purported official alternative - they will
continue to eclipse said purported official alternative.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf