North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
on 9/6/01 10:13 AM, Roeland Meyer at [email protected] wrote: > To be honest, even though I've used NAT myself and have implemented NAT for > friends and clients, I would NEVER represent that a NAT'd address has the > full connectivity to the Internet that a static address does. I've had many > people ask me why. I've even gotten some hate-mail from members of this > forum over this. The attached message is one instance-proof of where NAT is > deficient. You are correct in that one:many NAT isn't a "full" internet connection, and I agree that it shouldn't be represented as such. > A business that requires direct Internet access can't use NAT at the border. Not true. While I expect you will take this as nitpicking, one:one NAT is very conveniently used for servers while one:many NAT can be used for generic workstation access while preserving a consistent LAN numbering scheme. Anything that a "full" internet connection gets you will also work with one:one NAT. > A business that delivers services to the internet can't use NAT, for their > application servers, at all. This is laughable. You're telling me that we can't use our Alteons or Arrowpoints that use NAT to provide (redundant and load balanced!) internet services? I guess we should just go back to the One Big Web Server days, and put all our MS SQL database servers out in "full" view of the internet. Now there's any idea. --Doug