On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:11:29 EST, Dave Robinson said: > What's the problem with locally significant addresses? Having thousands of Hmm.. this from a guy posting from endtoend.com? I'm not sure if the right word is "ironic" or "sarcastic". In any case, didn't we just release an RFC detailing in excruciating detail? -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Matt Holdrege
- RE: NATs *ARE* evil! Dave Robinson
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Scott Brim
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! chris d koeberle
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Melinda Shore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Michael Richardson
- RE: NATs *ARE* evil! Dave Robinson
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Brian E Carpenter
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Keith Moore
- Re: NATs *ARE* evil! Stephen Sprunk
- RE: NATs *ARE* evil! Iliff, Tina
- RE: NATs *ARE* evil! Pan Jung
- RE: NATs *ARE* evil! Iliff, Tina
- RE: NATs *ARE* evil! David Higginbotham
- RE: NATs *ARE* evil! Chris Millikin