> The thing is while NAT is horrible for what you're saying, it probably did more to improve security than anything else, which wasn't it's primary goal.
Are you defending NAT? It sounds like a Vietnam era construction: you had to destroy the Internet in order to save it.
We now have a seemingly entrenched tree-structured (i.e. centralized) network again, the very 1960s architecture we tried so hard to get away from.
Are you defending NAT? It sounds like a Vietnam era construction: you had to destroy the Internet in order to save it.
We now have a seemingly entrenched tree-structured (i.e. centralized) network again, the very 1960s architecture we tried so hard to get away from.