Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
From: Adam McKenna <adam-nanog () flounder net>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 00:31:11 -0700

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"cure" superceded the need.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 McKenna <adam () flounder net>   | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA
http://flounder.net/publickey.html |      38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]