Keith Moore wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2011, at 1:09 AM, Martin Rex wrote: > > (a bunch of stuff in defense of NAT) > > Rather than having another of an endless series of discussions about > the merits of NAT or lack thereof, can we just agree that it should > not be pre-ordained that this WG should assume NAT as a solution? You absolutely want to have fairly fixed addresses within your home network, and you absolutely want to have a short-lived ephemeral IP-Address assigned on your internet side of your home gateway for the purpose of privacy. Otherwise the number of very unpleasant surprises, including stuff like this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/30/xbox_swat_police_rait/ is going to become quite popular. And that is really among the mild unpleasant things if every bit that floats in and out your internet gatway has your name stamped on it visibly to everyone. -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf