On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Treanor, Ciaran wrote:
> > nope.
>> Could you give more detail. I'm honestly curious about this.
NAT can be a pain in the backside. try debugging network problems when
there's a NAT machine in the middle. (now was that /my/ packet?
NAT often requires knowledge of user protocol in order to function,
NAT only works one way. (breaks peer to peer addressing).
i'm sure there's plenty more reasons, but i just cant think of them. i
dont think NAT is /bad/, i just think it is a workaround.
globally unique addrs, eg with IPv6:
- disadvantages none
- advantages over 'global unique addresses' none
- disadvantages some
so where's the argument?
> Sorry to be pedantic, but the point of *TCP* is to provide end-to-end
ok... i've got a web server running on my desktop,
dunlop.dub.ie.alphyra.com. connect to it. (ok you cant resolve the
adderss, but even you could, it wouldnt help).
> Can't argue with that, but what percentage of people out there can
> live perfectly happily with NAT?
so when everyone is using IPv6, they should still use NAT?
> Ciaran T
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!