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 >