RE: RES: ReN: IPv6 tranisition issues

Fred,

I did not think Keiths mail was insulting.  What he has said and is
saying in most cases is correct. NAT breaks end-to-end period.  Work
arounds are unacceptable to any business person I know for many many
reasons identified in the RFC on NAT Implications.

How would you rephrase:

you are mistaken.  your statement is completely and utterly incorrect

To make is not insulting?  Though I would not find that insulting.
Keith has been personnally attacked and very rudely many many times in
this discussion format.  I have too and unlike Keith I have offered
several to even discuss it out of the IETF on the street or in some
private location to get to root of their issue with me or others
personally.  So given the way he has been treated well I think he has
been extremely kind.

Let me try this.  NAT is bad for the Internet and bad for users and bad
for security and bad for people and does not work with end-to-end
applications.  Period.

Of course I really don't seriously care what people think on this list
but what the market thinks about NAT unless we want to build a standard
then that is our work here and I will care.  Fortuneately the market is
waking up and want NAT gone is my reading and it will be gone with IPv6.
Period.

Respectfully,
/jim


/jim

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred L. Templin [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 2:04 PM
> To: Keith Moore
> Cc: Marcelo Barbosa Lima; [email protected]; 
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: RES: ReN: (ngtrans) IPv6 tranisition issues
> 
> 
> Keith,
> 
> No offense intended, but I am beginning to suspect that you 
> have somehow implemented an "automatic insult generator" in 
> your mailer that is triggered anytime someone mentions the 
> word "NAT". :^}
> 
> Fred Templin
> [email protected]
> 
> Keith Moore wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 08:56:20 -0200
> > "Marcelo Barbosa Lima" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>  I think that NAT is a good workaround and it can be done 
> to support 
> >> all aplications
> > 
> > 
> > you are mistaken.  your statement is completely and utterly 
> incorrect.
> > 
> > Keith
> 
> 
>