Oliver wrote:
You're basically redefining the term "end-to-end transparency" to suit your own Already in RFC3102, which restrict port number ranges, it is stated that:
This document examines the general framework of Realm Specific IP (RSIP). RSIP is intended as a alternative to NAT in which the end- to-end integrity of packets is maintained. We focus on implementation issues, deployment scenarios, and interaction with other layer-three protocols.
Just because something is documented in RFC does not automatically make it a standard, nor does it necessarily make anyone care.
That's not a valid argument against text in the RFC proof read by the RFC editor as the evidence of established terminology of the Internet community.
It's you who tries to change the meaning of "end to end transparency".
Denial: not just a river in Egypt.
Invalid denial. Masataka Ohta