[41362] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam McKenna)
Fri Sep 7 03:37:24 2001
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 00:31:11 -0700
From: Adam McKenna <adam-nanog@flounder.net>
To: "NANOG (E-mail)" <nanog@merit.edu>
Message-ID: <20010907003111.D18723@flounder.net>
Mail-Followup-To: "NANOG (E-mail)" <nanog@merit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <EA9368A5B1010140ADBF534E4D32C728069E7E@condor.mhsc.com>
Mail-Copies-To: never
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 10:29:21PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> |> From: Eric A. Hall [mailto:ehall@ehsco.com]
> |> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 9:49 PM
>
> |> > "Charles Sprickman" <spork@inch.com>
> |>
> |> > NAT has it's place, and we have many happy customers that are quite
> |> > pleased with their NAT'd connections; some simple, some fancy.
> |>
> |> NATs are a band-aid.
>
> ip_masq started out as a cheap way to cheat ISPs that wouldn't allocate IP
> addrs to dial-up users (home users have no need for a LAN?), or wanted to
> charge an arm'n'leg for every IP addr. This irked the Linux community
> sufficiently that they wrote a "cure". Unfortunately, the popularity of the
> "cure" superceded the need.
Erm, sorry, but NAT was alive and well on Cisco routers long before it was in
the Linux kernel.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA
http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A
