[136726] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Johnson)
Fri Feb 4 13:11:46 2011
From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson@drtel.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 18:11:42 +0000
In-Reply-To: <EB1AD186-12D7-45FA-9D6A-9F6AF4968840@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
<snip>
>>
>> Was TCP/IP this bad back in 1983, folks?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -- jra
>
>In different ways, yes, it was.
>
>Owen
>
This is exactly the problem we have. Some people have no perspective on wha=
t the Internet is and it's real power. I've met too many people who claim t=
o be "in the know" on these topics that don't understand that NAT was desig=
ned for address preservation. That was the only/primary/driving real reason=
for its development. The other "features" were side effects and are not in=
tended to be solutions to production issues.
If I use a wrench to hammer nails, it may work fine, but when It comes to c=
ertain nails it may have issues. I'm using the tool for the wrong purpose. =
This is the folly of NAT.
- Brian J.
