North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...

  • From: Greg Maxwell
  • Date: Mon Sep 10 14:56:36 2001

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
collisions and.....


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
County Commissioners.