Re: quietly....

[Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>]

On 2/3/2011 1:04 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday, February 03, 2011 01:35:46 pm Jack Bates wrote:
> > I understand and agree that CPEs should not use NAT66. It should even be
> > a MUST NOT in the cpe router draft.
>
> Do you really think that this will stop the software developers of some CPE routers' OS code from just making it work?  Do you 
> really think the standard saying 'thou shalt not NAT' will produce the desired effect of preventing such devices from 
> actually getting built?

Do you think we have to have a standard for them to implement it?

If they can ignore the CPE router rules, they can implement NAT66 on 
their own, too.


Jack