[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: ND-proxy applicability in Unmanaged [Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unmaneval-01.txt]

To: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>, "Erik Nordmark" <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>, "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Subject: RE: ND-proxy applicability in Unmanaged [Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unmaneval-01.txt]
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:56:36 -0300
Cc: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, <jonne.soininen@nokia.com>
In-reply-to: <DAC3FCB50E31C54987CD10797DA511BA0817DF57@WIN-MSG-10.wingro up.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>

At 09:13 23/03/2004 -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:

I see "ndproxy" in much the same light as I see NAT: a cheap hack that
allows multiple hosts to connect to a single attachment without
explicitly requiring individual addresses or an explicit prefix.

Why should a host *need* to "own" a public network attachment point in order to be able to connect to a public network?

It's true that NATs, as we know them, have been deployed as a hack. However, that does not mean they *are* a hack.


--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org

Prev by Date: Re: ND-proxy applicability in Unmanaged [Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unmaneval-01.txt]
Next by Date: Re: Recent navel gazing - we need to stop wasting cycles on FUD
Previous by thread: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption-01.txt
Next by thread: WG Last Call: On-link Assumption and IPv6 On by default
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread