5 ms·

> "They're void of content" - no, they are just a restatement that any technology is only as evil as its use Which is exactly what I meant by "void of content"

> "They're void of content" - no, they are just a restatement that any technology is only as evil as its use Which is exactly what I meant by "void of content". This sentence is self evident, almost a tautology. About NAT themselves, I wasn't talking about using them for yourself, but using it for your customers. But that's probably what you mean by "uncontrolled use of NAT". About the load balancer, wouldn't the problem be solved with SRV records? Anyway, it appears from your other comments that we basically agree on everything. So let's not fight.

ay 16y ago
"This sentence is self evident, almost a tautology." - Ok, probably I misinterpreted your comment about the NATs being evil, apologies. "About the load balancer, wouldn't the problem be solved with SRV records?" - the SRVs would certainly help a lot - however, the predominant user of the load-balancers, the web browsers, are not using SRV and not planning to. The http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jennings-http-srv-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jennings-http-srv-00 which proposed it (and which possibly could have been used by the clients too) - now got pushed into something that would never be possible to use by the browsers. Re. agreement - yes, I think we do agree.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  > The http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jennings-http-srv-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jennings-http-srv-00 which proposed it […] - now got pushed into something that would never be possible to use by the browsers. That would really suck. Could you elaborate, or send me a link, please ?
  - ay 16y ago
    You can remove the -00 and look through the history of the doc - it's now at a later revision.