RE: NAT Traversal

Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com> Thu, 07 March 2002 02:50 UTC

Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g272oM801571; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 18:50:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA19823 Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:08:12 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15494.52771.613459.175178@pkoning.akdesign.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 21:19:15 -0500
From: Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>
To: pcn@cisco.com
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: RE: NAT Traversal
References: <15494.40103.826000.692699@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <Pine.GSO.4.33.0203061520370.14106-100000@cypher.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: VM 7.01 under 21.1 (patch 11) "Carlsbad Caverns" XEmacs Lucid
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

>>>>> "Chinna" == Chinna N R Pellacuru <pcn@cisco.com> writes:

 Chinna> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Paul Koning wrote:

 >> > I just want to make sure that there is no technical content in this
 >> > discussion anymore.
 >> >
 >> > We are down to the phase where are trying to figure out what the meaning
 >> > of "is" is.
 >>
 >> I find your attempt to compare me with William J. Clinton utterly
 >> offensive and entirely unacceptable for a technical discussion.

 Chinna> I found your comment about our implementation being "all
 Chinna> hole" utterly offensive and entirely unacceptable for a
 Chinna> technical discussion.

Ah.  I did not think those words would be read as an attack on your
personal honesty and integrity.  Instead, I intended it as a criticism
(perhaps a harsh one) on the technical soundness of your proposal (not
your implementation, which I do not know -- nor on you personally).
If it came across as a personal attack, my apologies.

On the other hand, I find it difficult to interpret your comment as
anything other than an attack on my honesty and personal integrity.  I
do not believe I have given anyone any cause for calling me dishonest
and of unsound moral character.  Yet your words appear to do just
that.  Why?

	paul