hi all,
i'm late in giving my contribution to this subject, as i'm on the other side of
world...
regarding NAT, its not horrible at all. as u all must be knowing its the
solution
that was provided to the problem of reducing IPv4 addresses. Yes, there is a
shortage of ipv4 addresses. Initially they were allocated to big organisations
without thinking anything, now they are crying that 'sorry boss! its all over'.
In this condition, NAT comes to rescue. You might have had bad experiences, but
i
think it depends on implementation. As there is no fixed standard, so it depends
on the implementation.
happy natting...
M. Dev
Sean Doran wrote:
Hi -
I should have waited until Perry had spoken, because now that he has
pointed out the extreme cost of NAT, I have seen the light!
NATs are expensive. They have gross side-effects. Even Noel Chiappa,
my guru, says that they are an architectural hack.
So, why are people deploying them?
They are so awful, that it must only happen when people have NO OTHER OPTION.
So, I have to wonder, why is it that they have no option?
Isn't it the job of the Internet Architecture Board to be addressing
this serious problem, since the IETF's solution doesn't seem to be working???
Sean.
--
Munish Dev
Nortel Networks