[136752] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roland Perry)
Fri Feb 4 17:03:49 2011
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 21:57:12 +0000
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Roland Perry <lists@internetpolicyagency.com>
In-Reply-To: <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06F039104@EX02.drtel.lan>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In article <F05D77A9631CAE4097F7B69095F1B06F039104@EX02.drtel.lan>,
Brian Johnson <bjohnson@drtel.com> writes
>Some people have no perspective on what the Internet is and it's real
>power. I've met too many people who claim to be "in the know" on these
>topics that don't understand that NAT was designed for address
>preservation.
Especially as most (I guess) users of NATing CPEs only have one dynamic
IP address, of which they are generally oblivious.
I have a feeling that the first NAT box I had (maybe 12 years ago),
connected to the Internet by dial-up, where traditionally the user
inherits the IP address (singular) of the modem/gateway they dialled
into, even if they have multiple hosts on their premises.
>That was the only/primary/driving real reason for its development. The
>other "features" were side effects and are not intended to be solutions
>to production issues.
But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to
renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether that's
once every five years like I just did with my ADSL, or once every time
the new ADSL hiccups[1] now that I have a CPE with 3G failover.
[1] Seems to be about weekly, so far.
--
Roland Perry
