[47240] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mike harrison)
Wed May 1 11:01:36 2002
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 11:00:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: mike harrison <meuon@highertech.net>
To: "Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
Cc: kevin graham <kgraham@dotnetdotcom.org>,
"nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <200205011451.g41EpRQn018414@foo-bar-baz.cc.vt.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10205011058370.31950-100000@home.highertech.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > of unadministered, always-on boxes that aren't supposed to be running
> > inbound services in unrouted space would save all of us headaches.
>
> That's almost a better justification for NAT than address-space conservation. ;)
Almost? I'd say it's hands down an EXCELLENT reason. In some configs
though, the NAT'd people can still see each other and cause problems,
but it still cuts down the exposure.
