Re: To address or NAT to address?

To: Christian Huitema <huitema at research.telcordia.com>
Subject: Re: To address or NAT to address?
From: "David R. Conrad" <David_Conrad at isc.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 20:16:38 -0800
Cc: Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>, Graham Klyne <GK at Dial.pipex.com>, Daniel Senie <dts at senie.com>, ietf at ietf.org
Organization: Internet Software Consortium
References: <Your message of "Tue, 30 Nov 1999 19:42:53 GMT." <3.0.32.19991130161610.00a1b540@pop.dial.pipex.com> <4.1.19991201113825.009b0560@mailee.research.telcordia.com>

Christian,

> Increasing our reliance on the DNS is definitely not a good idea.

Hmmm.  This would appear to be the exact opposite of what the IETF has done
with IPv6.

Rgds,
-drc

Follow-Ups:
- Re: To address or NAT to address?
  - From: Brian E Carpenter

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

Prev by Date: Re: To address or NAT to address?
Next by Date: Re: To address or NAT to address?
Previous by thread: Re: 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.