RE: quietly....

[Brian Johnson <bjohnson () drtel com>]

<snip>
> > Was TCP/IP this bad back in 1983, folks?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -- jra
>
> In different ways, yes, it was.
>
> Owen

This is exactly the problem we have. Some people have no perspective on what the Internet is and it's real power. I've 
met too many people who claim to be "in the know" on these topics that don't understand that NAT was designed for 
address preservation. That was the only/primary/driving real reason for its development. The other "features" were side 
effects and are not intended to be solutions to production issues.

If I use a wrench to hammer nails, it may work fine, but when It comes to certain nails it may have issues. I'm using 
the tool for the wrong purpose. This is the folly of NAT.

- Brian J.