-----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-----