--- Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmm... Depends on one's perspective. Do not underestimate the
timeliness of a solution. Timeliness is operational reality.
It could have been catastrphic had we not had a timely solution
with no addresses to issue. NAT is the reason we have had this much
time to work on IPng.
>
> Keith
>
>
regards,
suresh
=====
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com
