Talk:End-to-end connectivity
 | The contents of the End-to-end connectivity page were merged into [[{{{to}}}]] on July 2011. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
1) There's nothing erroneous about breaking connectivity for the security of a network -- i.e., FIREWALLS, physical separation. 2) Article should discuss port forwarding, especially in the part with dirty lies about 'outbound connections only' Qe2eqe (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Is NAT a temporary solution?
[edit]If manufacturers of network devices believed that it is, then all routers and network client devices made in the last 15 years (except low end ones) would have an IPv6 support. Is it true, indeed? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Make it a stub
[edit]With no citations for anything and a neutrality dispute, is there a need for this article to be anything other than a basic short stub? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think, merging the rest of "article" to End-to-end principle will be the best solution. That article has almost the same scope but it better referenced. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Vs. End-to-end principle
[edit]It appears that at least some editors have confused this topic with End-to-end principle. When that is removed, we're left with an End-to-end connectivity topic which is controversial and has not citations. --Kvng (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Seeing no comments or progress, I merged salvageable content into a new Limitiations section in the End-to-end principle article. --Kvng (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)