On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 08:48:11PM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > >If can we provide a compelling architecture without private address > >then there should be no private addresses, otherwise NAT is a force > >major > >issue and we have to redo all the applications which are broken by NAT > >(peeing against the wind has its obvious perils, so there is no reason > >to get upset.). > > > I like to see this the other way around. If we invent new applications > that won't work through NAT - people might find an incentive to not use > it.
There are old ones around... (reminds me I want to write a talkv6
specification and implementation) although I'm afraid with yet another special
hackery you can make _each one of them_ work.
Regards,
-is
msg09698/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
