mailing list archives
RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
From: Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell () martin fl us>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:54:08 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
Mot so. What is needed to truely fix NAT is to propogate the translated
addresses, both ways. This would give you an address product like <Inet
addr>:<NAT addr>. The problem is that almost no stack, that I know of, can
deal with such a form. The reason NAT works is that you only lose one side
and the other side doesn't know that you've lost it.
Yea yea yes! Thats the ticket! Then we just make sure that NATed hosts
have globally unique addresses so that the above idea doesn't break due to
*WAIT A SECOND*
At that point we've just recreated IP and the beautiful concept of putting
the smarts in the HOST (the only place which must contain state) and not
the Network (the place where state kills flexibility, reliability, and
availability), except that your scheme would have the crack added bonus
of profitable NAT translators!
Why didn't we think of this years ago!
The comments and opinions expressed herein are those of the author of this
message and may not reflect the policies of the Martin County Board of
RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Roeland Meyer (Sep 10)
RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... woody weaver (Sep 12)