Re: Fwd: A comment about MAST

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Eugene;

> Sorry, you seem to have filtered `this isn't some 10 years ago' part.  I
> do admit that MAST is strikingly similar to NAT in a sense you have
> pointed out below.  What intended to be a short term solution becoming
> prevalent.  Yes, very unfortunate.

A permanent solution which does not require any change to
most applicaitons already desinged, implemented and has been running
for more than a year.

> Now, what led to that NAT havoc?  IMO there are two reasons.  One is
> lack of the long-term solution developed in reasonable timeline, and
> the other is difficulty of phasing out NAT.

> NAT affects the entire network design, namely what address is being
> allocated to each and every machine in the network.  Having to redesign
> and reconfigure an entire network is every network administrator's
> nightmare,

Wrong.

Removal of NAT boxes is as easy as upgrading of routers.

The difficulty is in reconfiguring all the end systems.

But, that is not you argument, at all.

You proposed to have API to accomodate MAST which also accomodate NAT,
which shows your love for NAT.

Your proposal is to keep MAST and NAT forever.

> Finally, I'm afraid I cannot fully see what you said in your postscript;
> could you elaborate?

Just say LIN6.

							Masataka Ohta