[41455] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Baker)
Mon Sep 10 13:12:45 2001
From: "Joel Baker" <lucifer@lightbearer.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 11:12:07 -0600
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010910111207.A17887@lightbearer.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.20.0109091840460.8992-100000@alive.znep.com>; from marcs@znep.com on Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 07:00:03PM -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 07:00:03PM -0700, Marc Slemko wrote:
>
> Right, the tradition has roots at least a few years further back
> in the hack created by the "poor dialup shell account user" to allow
> them to get SLIP (and, at some point, CSLIP and PPP) access to the net
> without needing their own IP assigned by using a shell server they had an
> account on, with it's IP address. First done in TIA, then SLiRP.
>
> That was... 1994 or earlier.
>
> And TIA is essentially NAT, implemented in a manner that would be
> considered peculiar compared to today's common implementations.
TIA was pervasive enough, and causing enough *problems*, that many ISPs
were banning it's use, as of fall, 1994 (I can pin it that accurately due
to circumstances that only existed during that period, when I was dealing
with it).
SLiRP was around by, at latest, mid-1995, in response to it. Linux had
functional masquerade code at that time, as well, though it was a royal
pain to deal with (IE, nothing has changed much :)
--
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com http://www.lightbearer.com/~lucifer
