Re: To address or NAT to address?

To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov at cisco.com>, ietf at ietf.org
Subject: Re: To address or NAT to address?
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charliep at iprg.nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 10:09:23 -0800
Organization: Nokia Research Center
References: <199912021627.IAA08159@omega.cisco.com>
Sender: charliep at iprg.nokia.com

> 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).

DNS is supposed to be a way to resolve domain names into IP addresses.
How else would one get an IP(v6) address from a domain name other
than by using DNS?  Am I missing something here?

Whether to use DNS to resolve a name into a non-address foobar might be
debatable.
Whether to use DNS to resolve a name into an IP(v6) address is not.

Regards,
Charlie P.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: To address or NAT to address?
  - From: David R. Conrad
- Re: To address or NAT to address?
  - From: Christian Huitema

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

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.