Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 11:04:04 -0700


|> From: Jon Mansey [mailto:jon_mansey () verestar com]
|> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 10:26 AM
|> 
|> It seems a pretty simple argument to me.
|> 
|> Do I want as many people using (and maybe _buying_, what a concept!) 
|> my app as possible with the least amount of network clue and setup 
|> headaches, or do I want to eliminate most of the corporate, SOHO, 
|> cable, DSL, Linux population because I cant be bothered to 
|> develop my app to be NAT-friendly.
|> 
|> Duh!

Since when, is an app supposed to care what's in the middle? Even firewalls
are supported by middle-ware. NAT boundaries aren't. That's because NAT
boundaries are unpredictable in both presence and character. As the man
said, there is no NATpd so the end-points have to do all the work. Note
that, it is the *only* boundary method where this is so. This is the
fundimental reason that NAT is architectural fubar.

|> All the previous times this discussion has arisen here, I have 
|> concluded that "real" IPs should only be owned and used by 
|> folks with clue, everyone else gets a NATed IP. Discuss.

I sincerely hope that you are not telling your customers that they have full
internet access. Also, is a quiz required to be a customer of yours? Is it a
standardized test? Most customers, given such an opportunity, will find
another ISP. They don't know, they don't want to know, and they will find
someone that won't make them know.



  By Date           By Thread  

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