Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department formally adopts IPv6)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
Subject: Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department formally adopts IPv6)
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:42:53 -0400
Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, pbaker@verisign.com, Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org, aarsenau@bbn.com, ietf@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <2A1D4C86842EE14CA9BC80474919782E0D224C@mou1wnexm02.verisign.com>
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org

> I really wish that the IETF
> had designed a decent NAT box spec

that's an oxymoron.  the basic premis of NAT is fundamnetally broken.

References:
- RE: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)
  - From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip

Prev by Date: Re: WG review: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (l2vpn)
Next by Date: RE: WG review: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (l2vpn)
Previous by thread: Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)
Next by thread: Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [IETF Annoucements] [IETF] [IP Storage] [Yosemite News] [Linux SCTP] [Linux Newbies] [Fedora Users]