RES: RES: ReN: IPv6 tranisition issues

  Folks,

   I think that Keith=B4s answer did not offend to me. I want only a good=
 debate about IPv6=B4s subjects. I really believe that is possible to wri=
te code STATEFUL to NAT where whatever application can be supported. I be=
lieve that all connections/sessions related to one application can be inp=
esctioned (in application layer)and port numbers and IP address translate=
d like in simple FTP.  Of this way, NAT can provide support to many appli=
cations more complex. AGAIN, stateful NAT with application sense can be i=
mplemented to support this application. I really dont see reasons to that=
 one NAT applications-specific module can not be implemented. In Linux, f=
or example, exists IRC, Netmeeting and ICQ modules to masquerading. I als=
o believe that few implementation do it. My apologies for my "irresponsib=
le comments about NAT". I only thougth that it was a free debate between =
civilized people.
Best Regards,

			Marcelo.

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Bound, Jim [mailto:[email protected]]
Enviada em: segunda-feira, 6 de janeiro de 2003 17:47
Para: Fred L. Templin
Cc: Keith Moore; Marcelo Barbosa Lima; [email protected];
[email protected]
Assunto: RE: RES: ReN: (ngtrans) IPv6 tranisition issues


Hi Fred,

Missed the light part.  My apologies.  It is just some are so rude in
email I cannot help but wish them the worst from that view.  And I do.

/jim

=20


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred L. Templin [mailto:[email protected]]=20
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 2:35 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Keith Moore; Marcelo Barbosa Lima; [email protected];=20
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: RES: ReN: (ngtrans) IPv6 tranisition issues
>=20
>=20
> Hi Jim,
>=20
> Bound, Jim wrote:
> > Fred,
> >=20
> > I did not think Keiths mail was insulting.
>=20
> Exactly why I prefaced my note with "No offense intended";
> just trying to make light of an ongoing discussion that has
> (to me) become almost humerous by its cyclical nature. (Ever=20
> see the movie "Groundhog Day"?)
>=20
> Perhaps this was inappropriate, and hopefully has come at no=20
> expense to Keith (apologies if it has). I certainly didn't=20
> intend to single Keith out as being solely responsible for=20
> perpetuating the thread.
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> Fred
> [email protected]
>=20
>=20