On 27 nov 2008, at 16:39, Eric Klein wrote:
There is a diffrence between doing aways with NAT, allowing natural growth of NAT, and endorsing NAT. Of the 3 I only object to the 2nd one. So we either kill NAT so dead that it can not be brough back in any form or we find a way to meet the needs in a way that will not "break the internet" nor prevent new p2p applications.
I agree with this. I'd prefer no NAT, but I'll take a predictable, contained NAT over NAT anarchy.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf