[41354] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland Meyer)
Fri Sep 7 00:53:38 2001
Message-ID: <EA9368A5B1010140ADBF534E4D32C728069E7D@condor.mhsc.com>
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: 'Charles Sprickman' <spork@inch.com>
Cc: "NANOG (E-mail)" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:55:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
|> From: Charles Sprickman [mailto:spork@inch.com]
|> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 9:16 PM
|> On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> > To be honest, even though I've used NAT myself and have
|> implemented NAT for
|> > friends and clients, I would NEVER represent that a NAT'd
|> address has the
|> > full connectivity to the Internet that a static address does.
|>
|> True... neither does a well-firewalled LAN.
There is a substantial difference between broken access and controlled
access.
