[144405] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: NAT444 or ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leigh Porter)
Sun Sep 11 05:02:38 2011
From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com>
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>, "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:02:22 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGRNEUHD24S7ME5J5P9q-g_g5ur=TNOZDUVSmyhmYKk6tg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com]
> Ip mobility via gtp or mobile ip generally does not work when you nat
> at the
> 'edge'. If you don't want your ip address to change every time you
> change
> cell sites, the nat has to be centralized.
>=20
> Cb
Indeed, networks with some kind of anchor point (even xDSL networks with a=
LNS that terminates PPP sessions) really lend themselves to a big fat NAT=
box simply because there is a single point where all the connections appe=
ar anyway so why not have a single box doing NAT/DPI/etc as well?
I'd agree that, usually, distributed is better but these are not distribut=
ed networks, there is a single point (or a few large single points) of con=
tact.
--
Leigh
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email=20
______________________________________________________________________
