Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...

Fri Sep 7 07:31:11 UTC 2001

On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 10:29:21PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> 
> |> From: Eric A. Hall [mailto:ehall at ehsco.com]
> |> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 9:49 PM
> 
> |> > "Charles Sprickman" <spork at inch.com>
> |> 
> |> > NAT has it's place, and we have many happy customers that are quite
> |> > pleased with their NAT'd connections; some simple, some fancy.
> |> 
> |> NATs are a band-aid.
> 
> ip_masq started out as a cheap way to cheat ISPs that wouldn't allocate IP
> addrs to dial-up users (home users have no need for a LAN?), or wanted to
> charge an arm'n'leg for every IP addr. This irked the Linux community
> sufficiently that they wrote a "cure". Unfortunately, the popularity of the
> "cure" superceded the need.

Erm, sorry, but NAT was alive and well on Cisco routers long before it was in
the Linux kernel.

--Adam

-- 
Adam McKenna <adam at flounder.net>   | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA
http://flounder.net/publickey.html |      38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A