[136475] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Thu Feb 3 10:30:51 2011
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:12:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <10030DF7-3718-421B-8B78-51454F81D2AE@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
> It's not transparent to:
> Application Developers
> Operating Systems
> Home Gateway Developers
> Consumer Electronics Developers
> Technical Support departments
> My users who are trying to talk to your users using applications that
> are designed to work in a NAT-free world.
> My technical support department that gets the "we can't reach them"
> calls from my users who can't reach your users.
>
> It may not be your first trip to the rodeo, but, you do appear to have
> a rather limited perspective on the far reaching detriments of NAT.
This is possible. The networks I administer are, admittedly, smaller ones,
and they tend to be business-aimed, and thereby have a more strictly limited
set of policy-allowed uses... which I've set.
Customer transit networks will necessarily expose a larger set of usage...
but they also generally (Rose.net notwithstanding) don't apply NAT.
I see cogent arguments on both sides of the issue.
And my thanks to those on this part of this thread who've supplied
actual explanations, rather than merely assertions.
Cheers,
-- jra
