Re: To address or NAT to address?

To: Graham Klyne <GK at Dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: To address or NAT to address?
From: "Matt Crawford" <crawdad at fnal.gov>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:32:44 -0600
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 30 Nov 1999 19:42:53 GMT. <3.0.32.19991130161610.00a1b540@pop.dial.pipex.com>
Sender: crawdad at gungnir.fnal.gov

> It seems to me that we may be able to recapture some aspects of end-to-end
> transparency at the application level if addressing issues are focused on
> host FQDNs, rather than IP addresses.

Forget about it.  Many of the same folks doing NAT also do a
two-faced DNS which hides most of their names from the outside.  So a
host inside such a site has no more idea of its global name than of
its global address.

References:
- To address or NAT to address?
  - From: Graham Klyne

Prev by Date: Re: To address or NAT to address?
Next by Date: Re: To address or NAT to address?
Previous by thread: To address or NAT to address?
Next by thread: Re: To address or NAT to address?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: To address or NAT to address?

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.