Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users

To: Richard Shockey <rshockey at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
From: Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:35:46 -0500
Cc: vint cerf <vcerf at MCI.NET>, "Bernard D. Aboba" <aboba at internaut.com>, Jiri Kuthan <kuthan at fokus.gmd.de>, ietf at ietf.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:32:35 EST." <5.0.2.1.2.20010120212137.02885620@127.0.0.1>
Sender: moore at cs.utk.edu

> simply put and well stated..but I do suspect that the current NAT problem
> can be solved by the proper deployment of applications that MUST have
> routeable addresses.

no, it's the other way around.  the existence of NATs is keeping those
applications from being widely deployed.

Keith

References:
- RE: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
  - From: Richard Shockey

Prev by Date: Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
Next by Date: Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
Previous by thread: Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
Next by thread: Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users
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.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.