IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NATs *ARE* evil!

Matt Holdrege <matt@ipverse.com> Fri, 15 December 2000 19:50 UTC

Received: by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id OAA21600 for ietf-outbound.10@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:50:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sapphire.int.ipverse.com (w067.z208037018.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net [208.37.18.67]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA20936 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:19:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from matt.ipverse.com (ietf.207.137.72.197.tx.verio.net [207.137.72.197]) by sapphire.int.ipverse.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id XNX7N6HH; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:19:16 -0800
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20001215101340.02607d90@pop3.ipverse.com>
X-Sender: matt@ipverse.com@pop3.ipverse.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:19:16 -0800
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: Matt Holdrege <matt@ipverse.com>
Subject: Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
In-Reply-To: <3A39A086.75B2E244@nortelnetworks.com>
References: <20001214065548.312A6898@sean.ebone.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org

Folks should read and *refer* to the NAT WG documents before commenting. An 
awful lot of work was put into the content and wording of these documents.

RFC 2663
draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-06.txt
&
RFC 2993

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email