Subject: Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables

From: [email-masked] (Sean Doran)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:22:12 +0100 (CET)

| I don't see why this generates comments about anti-NAT religion.

I prepared a shockingly rude but very funny riposte to this message,
however the spirits intervened and decided to make a poorly-aimed
wheel-mouse motion kill the editor in a surprising way.

Unless this can be attributed to the universe's hatred of NAT in
general, may I humbly suggest that this is a suggestion from the loa
that we return to the discussion at hand, viz. how to make
midboxes more useful to the people who choose to deploy them, by (for
example) exposing servers inside to things outside, and so forth?

Perhaps some kind soul will create a NAT-Haters mailing list or alt.flame.nat
USENET newsfroup, since it seems like that would serve as a meeting-place for
people who don't like NATs, as well as being a great place to rant
about people's bruised knees, and may keep the running warfare from spilling
onto unimaginable numbers of mailing lists?

	Sean. (who has never ever ranted on IPNGwg)

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:22:37 -0500

> example) exposing servers inside to things outside, and so forth?

I respectfully but firmly disagree that this is "the discussion at 
hand", or even that such a discussion is a useful. but if you must 
have that discussion, please take it to the midcom list.  meanwhile 
other parts of IETF might actually be able work on solving the problems
created by NATs rather than trying to perpetuate them. 
 
> Perhaps some kind soul will create a NAT-Haters mailing list or 
> alt.flame.nat USENET newsfroup, since it seems like that would serve 
> as a meeting-place for people who don't like NATs, as well as being 
> a great place to rant about people's bruised knees, and may keep 
> the running warfare from spilling onto unimaginable numbers of 
> mailing lists?

there would be no point to a NAT-haters list. the entire purpose
of refuting bogus claims about NAT is to promote better understanding
of NATs among those who aren't aware of their problems, and such
people wouldn't be on the list anyway.

Keith