Duane wrote:
> Ben Laurie wrote:
>
>>> Beats me, everyone seems rather concerned over an issue that no one
>>> could fix if they wanted to in any case. That isn't to say that someone
>>> shouldn't be doing in terms of getting NAT better for in future, but
>>> existing deployments by and large are never going to be upgraded until
>>> new hardware is purchased.

>> Whether that's true or not, isn't it a good idea that the new hardware
>> actually does the right thing?

>
> I already suggested that, but apparently NAT needs to be fixed as much
> as DNS in new hardware.


Exactly.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.links.org/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: