> NATs proliferated despite the IETF; the RFCs were to document what
> was out there.  To be sure, the IETF is philosophically opposed to
> NATs.

Not very, in practice; they've published things like RFC 3235, and I
see no push to eliminate the various kludges that make NAT work (for
sufficiently loose values of "work", of course).  Perhaps I'm just
missing it, but it seems to me that if anything, being NAT-friendly is
considered a good thing in protocol design these days.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B