[41345] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland Meyer)
Thu Sep 6 21:18:02 2001
Message-ID: <EA9368A5B1010140ADBF534E4D32C728069E7A@condor.mhsc.com>
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: 'David Howe' <DaveHowe@gmx.co.uk>, nanog@merit.edu
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 18:18:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
|> From: David Howe [mailto:DaveHowe@gmx.co.uk]
|> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 5:54 PM
|>
|> > Or more completely, they expect the network to be
|> > transparent so that every port at the destination IP
|> > address connects to the same machine, and there
|> > is no operational restriction on which end initiates
|> > the communication.
Absolutely true. I'll take that clarification.
|> which of course *is* possible for at least one machine per visible IP
|> address - even if additional IPs are masqed behind it.
if you are doing one:one NAT then why do NAT at all?
if you are doing one:many then it won't work (broken).
