Bet none of you thought in 1995, "NAT is going to be better than IPv6"
-
-
Replying to @SwiftOnSecurity
@SwiftOnSecurity FYI: I did, as far back as 1992. It was my one argument with Vint Cerf. His response was 'but it breaks end-to-end'.2 replies 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ErrataRob
@ErrataRob@SwiftOnSecurity he was right and protocol design is a disaster now2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @dakami
@dakami@SwiftOnSecurity Nope, he was a reactionary who opposes innovation that doesn't conform to his outdated beliefs.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ErrataRob
@dakami@SwiftOnSecurity ...in other words, he's just like the Old Timer circuit-switch engineers who opposed the packet-switch innovation.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ErrataRob
@ErrataRob@SwiftOnSecurity eh. He was right. NAT has in fact created the predicted problems.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dakami
@dakami@SwiftOnSecurity What broke end-to-end was hackers making firewalls necessary. NAT is no worse than any other firewall.7 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@ErrataRob @dakami there's the fun thing that happens where you can't reach hosts on a VPN because they share netblocks with your subnet
-
-
Replying to @bascule
@bascule@ErrataRob@dakami Then Verizon calls you an outlying customer b/c you don't use 192.168.1.0/24 and their Quantum setup fails.0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.