[136366] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Payne)
Wed Feb 2 14:48:22 2011
From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
In-Reply-To: <437F22E3-154B-4DD2-B37B-8BC54D116B40@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 14:48:14 -0500
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 1, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
> On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:56 PM, John Payne wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Feb 1, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> 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).
>>=20
>>=20
>> That's a bold statement. Especially as you said NAT and not PAT.
>=20
> NAT, PAT, whatever... I'm willing to back it up.
NAT provides a solution to, lets call it, enterprise multihoming. =
Remote office with a local Internet connection, but failover through the =
corporate network.
In IPv4 this would likely be done with PAT, but I'm looking forward to =
being able to do something similar with NAT66 (or whatever it ends up =
being called) without blowing out my internal policies or having to =
maintain multiple addresses on each end point.=
