On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sep 5, 2012, at 21:08 , Masataka Ohta <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Jimmy Hess wrote: >> >>> NAT would fall under design flaw, because it breaks end-to-end >>> connectivity, such that there is no longer an administrative choice >>> that can be made to restore it (other than redesign with NAT >>> removed). >> >> The end to end transparency can be restored easily, if an >> administrator wishes so, with UPnP capable NAT and modified >> host transport layer. >> > > This is every bit as much BS as it was the first 6 times you pushed it. >
Yep.
