> I'm being a bit extreme but the point is that just because something is > architecturally bad doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, since these days it > takes us years to make any architectural enhancements. perhaps architectural impurity alone shouldn't keep you from doing something, but the fact that something violates fundamental design assumptions should cause you to do some analysis and hard thinking about the likely consequences of using them. and if you are in the business of selling boxes that violate the design assumptions you shouldn't misrepresent these to your customers. most of these hacks can be employed in ways that are mostly harmless, but knowing when they are harmless and when they will cause harm can be quite difficult. NATs seemed mostly harmless when they were first deployed; now they're a huge problem. Keith
- Re: recommendation against publication of ... Patrik Fältström
- Re: recommendation against publication... Dick St.Peters
- Re: recommendation against publication... Patrik Fältström
- breaking the IP model (or not) Keith Moore
- RE: breaking the IP model (or not) Bernard Aboba
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Keith Moore
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Erik Fair
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Keith Moore
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Brian E Carpenter
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Scott Brim
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Keith Moore
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Scott Brim
- Re: recommendation against publication of ... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publication... Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: recommendation against publication... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publication... Derrell D. Piper
- Re: recommendation against publication... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publication... Fred Baker
- Re: recommendation against publication... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publication... Joe Touch
- Re: recommendation against publication of draft-cerpa-n... Dave Crocker