> The IAB has talked about NAT. A WG has produced a bunch of > RFCs about NAT. the WG ended up being full of NAT vendors trying to legitimize NAT (and grossly exceeding the bounds of their charter in the process) > 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. for one attempt to make lemonade, see RFC 3056. for another, see draft-ietf-ngtrans-shipworm-08.txt for another, see draft-moore-nat-tolerance-recommendations-00.txt (it's expired - look in http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/I-D/ ) but looking for a way to magically turn NATs into something that works well that doesn't require both significant infrastructure investment and significant changes to the endpoints and apps is tantamount to wishing for magic pixie dust. Keith