[136186] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benson Schliesser)
Tue Feb 1 17:22:54 2011
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: <0A77875D-59A4-422A-A5D4-116A0C5EE536@delong.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:09:17 -0600
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address =
consumption to work around a shortage of addresses.
>=20
> It does not solve any other problem(s).
In all fairness, that's not really true. It just doesn't solve other =
problems in an optimal way.
Also, NAT44 implies address oversubscription while NAT66 doesn't =
necessarily have such a requirement.
Not that I love NAT66, but let's at least be honest about it.
Cheers,
-Benson
