Re: To address or NAT to address?

To: Brian E Carpenter <brian at hursley.ibm.com>, "David R. Conrad" <David_Conrad at isc.org>
Subject: Re: To address or NAT to address?
From: Pyda Srisuresh <srisuresh at yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:39:41 -0800 (PST)
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

--- Brian E Carpenter <brian at hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
> "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

Brian, 

I am aware of the problems DNS-ALG has w.r.t. DNSSEC. But, what are the DNS 
Load-sharing problems you are refering to here? 

regards,
suresh 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

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

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.