allan at alum.mit.edu
Tue Jun 10 14:43:01 UTC 1997
Joel Gallun wrote:
> You can dismiss this problem by saying the apps are broken (which they
> are), but the simple fact is our customers want to use these apps.
> I'd recommend DHCP. In communities where we've used it, it has worked
> fine and not caused any of the problems that NAT does.
You could assign static addresses for the customers that request it.
You'd retain most of the benefits of NAT. NAT is really well worth
it in _some_ cases. We cut a 30 site WAN/LAN from one internet provider
to another in 5 minutes.
One of my clients had another problem with NAT. Seems that Cisco's
NAT implementation translates DNS addresses in the payload when it is a
plain query, and doesn't when it is a zone transfer. Meant that we
couldn't have secondaries on the outside of the NAT.
Also, their NAT implementation was absent for the 3600 in 11.2.4 and
11.2.5 (despite all documentation to the contrary). In typical
cisco fashion, they lent us a 4700, so I'm not in any hurry to get
Allan Chong allan at alum.mit.edu
"When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did---in his
sleep. Not yelling and screaming --like the passengers in his car."
More information about the NANOG