Thus spake "Mark Andrews" <Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org>
>>>>> "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.
It works just fine; I have thousands of customers that do it every day
behind cheap CPE NAT boxes. Perhaps they have TFTP ALGs, but I doubt it
given they can't even handle FTP or DNS right in many cases.
I agree NA(P)T is an evil hack, and I'd love to see it go away, but this is
not a valid example of its evilness.
S
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf