Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users

["Henning G. Schulzrinne" <hgs at cs.columbia.edu>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 

> > - without "transparent" caches
> 
> Do you mean interception proxies, in WREC terminology?

Yes.

> 
> > - no port restrictions
> 
> And no protocol type restrictions
> 
> > - no NATs
> 
> How about adding IPv6 support?

Good idea.

> >
> > (and whatever other abominations one might want to add to this list).
> > Seems like a good role for ISOC, for example :-)
> 
> The ISOC isn't a trade association, which is where such seals
> of approval (and the associated b*ke-offs) tend to come from.

Maybe the IPv6 consortium or whatever they call themselves could do
this, since IPv6 is a (the only?) realistic alternative to NATs.

-- 
Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs