North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 10:29:21PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > |> From: Eric A. Hall [mailto:[email protected]] > |> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 9:49 PM > > |> > "Charles Sprickman" <[email protected]> > |> > |> > 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 "cure" superceded the need.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 -- Adam McKenna <[email protected]> | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A
|