"Keith" == Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
>> Fourth, lots of folks (me included) happen to find it
>> convenient to use NAT between my site/house/office and my
>> upstream provider.
Keith> do you also find it "convenient" that NAT has effectively
Keith> thwarted the deployment of huge numbers of new
Keith> applications, significantly raised the cost of deploying
Keith> others, and harmed the reliability of all applications?
I find the tradeoffs work in favor of NAT; I expect this to be true
both for V4 and V6.
Try tftp booting two devices from behind a NAT w/o a tftp
ALG.
Yes this is a obscure case but is is a perfect example of
why NAT is evil. Things that just should work fail and
there is no end user fix.
With a plain firewall you can add rules to let the reply
traffic through.
With a NAT you have to choose which device gets to boot as
you can't port forward both sets of replies.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf