NAT support and laws for the lawless

[Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>]

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> People appear to be so caught up in whether we should be supporting NAT that
> the issue of how to support NAT is forgotten about.

Agreed. However, at some point we're writing laws for the lawless. NATs 
exist only by breaking what few real standards we've had in the 
Internet. Writing standards for the rest of us to traverse a moving, 
lawless target is not necessarily productive, IMO.

email is a specious analogy, because many of the legacy systems were 
implemented before, not in defiance of, Internet specs.

That said, it still can be useful to _try_ to proceed; we can certainly 
continue this thread either off-line or this separate subject.

Joe