Re: Fwd: A comment about MAST

["Eugene M. Kim" <gene@nttmcl.com>]

Hello,

If you meant your original reply to what Dave forwarded here, all that
there is seems to be `This argument is so similar to what NAT lovers say
(in order to defend NAT), so it must be automatically shot down.'  I can
see your frustration there, but it would be appreciated if you gave a
technical, not political, insight about how the proposed API for MAST
also technically, not politically, accomodated NAT.

If you were referring not to that post but to an earlier one, could you
give a pointer?  It's almost impossible to read all your posts here one
by one over a slow HTML archive.

BTW, is there an archive of this list in plain UNIX mbox format? (-- to
other ML subscribers)

Thanks,
Eugene

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Masataka Ohta" <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: "Eugene M. Kim" <gene@nttmcl.com>
Cc: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>; <multi6@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: A comment about MAST


> Eugene;
>
> > > Your proposal is to keep MAST and NAT forever.
> >
> > I don't understand.  What I proposed is an API that communicates
socket
> > endpoint address changes to the application layer; how does that API
> > accomodate/facilitate NAT?
>
> Read ML log for my past reply.
>
> Masataka Ohta
>