> First, please excuse my lack of background and intellectual knowledge in > all this discussion. > > Many of the comments that I have read over the past few weeks regarding > this seem to revolve around the "theory" of how it should work. Theory is > great. Many of the people in this group that post are from acedemia and > research areas. I don't see too many posts from people that are actually > trying to make this all work.
Why in the world do you believe that people "from academia and research areas" are not "actually trying to make this all work"? I won't speak for others, but "actually trying to make this all work" is *exactly* what I'm doing! Perhaps we should similarly disregard contributions from .gov addresses on the theory that the US government is just trying to interfere with, or tax, the net's operation (or worse)? It makes about as much sense. I'd prefer that we judge posts on their technical merit rather than assuming things about the purpose or background of people based on their email addresses. Keith p.s. And if you think that NAT is an appropriate mechanism to prevent access to your devices from outside, perhaps you should remedy your "lack of background and intellectual knowledge". There's no security benefit that NAT provides that can't be provided with less disruption by stateful firewalls. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
