[e2e] Forbes.com story highlights how NATs destroy end-to-end reliability

Steve Deering deering at cisco.com
Wed Jul 11 13:52:48 PDT 2001

At 11:21 AM -0400 7/11/01, David P. Reed wrote:
>It is also becoming clear that patching the symptoms of a bad design
>choice (NAT in this case)...


It is overly charitable to call NAT a "design choice".

>...is going to be never-ending, and it's time to obviate the need to
>perpetuate such kludges.  I realize that this (beginning with IPv6,
>end-to-end encryption, etc.) is a big job and the Cisco/3Com/Microsoft
>axis don't seem to have the guts to do it.

Cisco, Microsoft, 3Com and many other vendors *are* doing it (i.e.,
providing IPv6 and IPsec capabilities in their products), but as you say,
it's a big job, so it's taking a while.  Your "don't have the guts" may
have been a fair characterization two years ago, but certainly not now.
Since you mentioned specific company names, perhaps I can be forgiven
for posting a pointer to a relevant press release that just went
out yesterday:


(Don't click on that link if you are offended by PR-speak.)


More information about the end2end-interest mailing list