RE: NATs *ARE* evil!

[Dave Robinson]

What's the problem with locally significant addresses?  Having thousands of
10 networks will never present a problem unless those networks at some point
would like to talk to each other.  Is that where this whole discussion is
going (or coming from) - that ultimately the more NAT'ing we do, the more
headaches we're creating for ourselves en route to true global connectivity?

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 10:56 AM
To: Dave Robinson
Cc: Keith Moore; M Dev; Sean Doran; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NATs *ARE* evil! 


because in a NATted network the same addresses are used in different
parts of the network.  addresses are meaningless.