Subject: RE: ND-proxy applicability in Unmanaged [Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unmaneval-01.txt]

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:56:36 -0300

At 09:13 23/03/2004 -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:

>I see "ndproxy" in much the same light as I see NAT: a cheap hack that
>allows multiple hosts to connect to a single attachment without
>explicitly requiring individual addresses or an explicit prefix.

Why should a host *need* to "own" a public network attachment point in 
order to be able to connect to a public network?

It's true that NATs, as we know them, have been deployed as a hack. 
However, that does not mean they *are* a hack.

--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]