Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...

Fri Sep 7 17:26:02 UTC 2001

It seems a pretty simple argument to me.

Do I want as many people using (and maybe _buying_, what a concept!) 
my app as possible with the least amount of network clue and setup 
headaches, or do I want to eliminate most of the corporate, SOHO, 
cable, DSL, Linux population because I cant be bothered to develop my 
app to be NAT-friendly.

Duh!

All the previous times this discussion has arisen here, I have 
concluded that "real" IPs should only be owned and used by folks with 
clue, everyone else gets a NATed IP. Discuss.

jm

>  > > |> True...  neither does a well-firewalled LAN.
>>  >
>>  > There is a substantial difference between broken access and controlled
>>  > access.
>>
>>  Yes, but there are plenty of apps that will not work if you do not leave
>>  open large, arbitrary ranges of udp ports.  This is fundamentally
>>  incompatible with most sane firewalls.  Or NAT.
>>
>>  Why write a protocol that way?  Just to prove NAT sucks?
>>
>>  Charles
>
>
>	No, because they were either written before NAT existed and
>tried hard to conform to the end2end principles of Internet Architecture
>or they were written after NAT existed and tried hard to conform to the
>end2end principles of Internet Architecture.
>
>	NAT violates the end2end principles of the Internet Architecture
>by placing one or more policy abstraction layer(s) between the endpoints.
>
>	That said, NAT is a tool in the tool box.  I'd like to think that
>its worth the effort to try and recover true end2end.
>
>--bill

-- 

jon_mansey at verestar.com                      Chief Science Officer
------------------------------------------------------------------
Verestar Networks, Inc.                    http://www.verestar.com
1901 Main St.                                   tel (310) 382 3300
Santa Monica, California 90405                  fax (310) 382 3310
------------------------------------------------------------------