From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <509071940904150929l9a5dd4dvb536d1b76c62bb0d@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090415160640.GR4823@masters6.cs.jhu.edu> <509071940904150929l9a5dd4dvb536d1b76c62bb0d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:41:37 -0400 Message-ID: <9ab217670904150941u2f88a303uf17f09c46f98c808@mail.gmail.com> From: "Devon H. O'Dell" To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] NAT implementation Topicbox-Message-UUID: dc2d9038-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 2009/4/15 Anthony Sorace : > the idea is interesting, but it's a compliment, not a replacement. > there's plenty of situations where installing something on all your > hosts is either impractical or undesirable; centralizing the work in > network infrastructure is often a big win. doing what you describe > hits a different set of use cases. This is what I meant to say, expressed in a much nicer, and less asshole-ish fashion. --dho