> >NAT is an architecturally bankrupt strategy - the more you try to fix
> >it, the more complex the architecture becomes, the harder it becomes to
> >write and configure applications, and the the more brittle the network
> >becomes. There is no way to fix the problems created by NAT without
> >a global name space for points in the network topology, and this is
> >the thing that NAT fundamentally destroys.
>
> I agree with that, but see no other alternative (other than waiting for
> IPv6) than improving communication through NAT piece by piece.
The best way to improve communication through NAT is for the NAT
boxes to support IPv6 routing and 6to4.
