Re: To address or NAT to address?

To: Brian E Carpenter <brian at hursley.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: To address or NAT to address?
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov at cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 08:27:45 -0800
Cc: "David R. Conrad" <David_Conrad at isc.org>, 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
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Dec 1999 09:53:30 CST." <384695FA.85AA0A90@hursley.ibm.com>

Brian,

> > 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.

With this in mind I hope that the same folks who complained about
increased dependencies on DNS by NATs, would be equally vocal in
complaining about increased reliance on the DNS by IPv6 (which claimed
to be an improvement over NATs).

Yakov.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: To address or NAT to address?
  - From: Steve Deering
- Re: To address or NAT to address?
  - From: Charles E. Perkins

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

Prev by Date: Re: To address or NAT to address?
Next by Date: Re: Crypto Advocate Under FBI Investigation (For Treason)
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.