William Herrin wrote:
In case Nick's comment wasn't obvious enough:
Anything written in RFC1796 should be ignored, because RFC1796, an informational, not standard track, RFC, states so. It's so obvious.
RFC 1796:
It is a regrettably well spread misconception that publication as an RFC provides some level of recognition. It does not, or at least not any more than the publication in a regular journal."
Your silliness, too, is appreciated.
End-to-end is generally described as a layer 3 phenomenon.
Read the original paper on it: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/End-to-End%20Arguments%... to find that the major example of the paper is file transfer, an application.
we are for practical, operational purposes just shy of -never- talking about or using that kind of NAT.
For practical operational purposes, it is enough that PORT command of ftp works transparently. Masataka Ohta