|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Jens Link <lists@quux.de> To: nanog@nanog.org Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:15:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20110210230819.GA30629@srv03.cluenet.de> (Daniel Roesen's message of "Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:08:19 +0100") Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de> writes: > And quite important for residential ISPs of some size: have fun teaching > your call centers diagnosing double-NAT failure modes. > > NAT444 is a hell I don't want to visit really. No it's great! It's secure! It's easy to implement! It's the only way to do it right! Till the end of the month I'm working for a rather large enterprise customer and they use NAT, NAT NAT, NAT NAT NAT, and even even NAT NAT NAT NAT connections for their VPN. They claim that it's easy. I think it isn't and I relay need to get drunk after troubleshooting such a problem. So I must be stupid, because NAT is so *easy*. On the other hand, when you tell them about IPv6 they say it's to complicated and that they don't need it. Jens -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595 Berlin, Germany | +49-151-18721264 | | http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jenslink@guug.de | ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |