Re: To address or NAT to address?

To: "David R. Conrad" <David_Conrad at isc.org>
Subject: Re: To address or NAT to address?
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian at hursley.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 09:53:30 -0600
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema at research.telcordia.com>, 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: IBM
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> <3845F2A6.59E527A6@isc.org>

"David R. Conrad" wrote:
> 
> 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

Well now. There is some truth in that (A6 records are quite complex...)
but NAT has generated some serious and complex dependencies on DNS too,
not to mention various load sharing techniques.

  Brian

Follow-Ups:
- Re: To address or NAT to address?
  - From: Yakov Rekhter

References:
- To address or NAT to address?
  - From: Graham Klyne
- Re: To address or NAT to address?
  - From: Christian Huitema
- Re: To address or NAT to address?
  - From: David R. Conrad

Prev by Date: Re: Crypto Advocate Under FBI Investigation (For Treason)
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.