Michel Py wrote:
Joe Touch wrote:
Since we've been lacking a similar non-NAT solution,
we (ISI) built one called TetherNet, as posted earlier:
http://www.isi.edu/tethernet
What is this beside a box that setups a tunnel? What's the difference
with:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk583/tk372/technologies_configuration_e
xample09186a00801982ae.shtml
The same difference, in principle, between DHCP and setting the IP
address yourself. The details of which are in the ISI web page above.
FWIW, the "seriousness of the impediments" (Michael Py)
are felt wherever NATs are deployed.
Yeah right. That's why there are millions of NAT sites and they all have
serious impediments.
There are millions of Compaq computers sold; all that run Windows (the
vast majority) rely on a local web server to manage Compaq software
updates.
But the people behind NATs don't know that. They just don't get the
updates. There are other cases where things just silently fail, and
people go out and buy alternatives that work, or live without. You deem
this, in other mail, a 'security feature'; I deem it a bug.
Ignorance is bliss, but only when it's not expensive and/or frustrating.
Your other post to Melinda was closer to the primary issue, IMO -
whether we can create an alternative which is as easy to use. The whole
point of my post is that this can be done. Our solution may not be the
best or the only one, but it proves (by example) that NATs aren't the
only way to automated subnets, and that there is a way to undo the
effects of NATs if - or when - those effects are finally noticed.
Joe