--- Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Keith - There is no denying that NAT devices break a bunch of applications
> > and protocols. But, they did get us through the rough times when IP
> > addresses are scarce and many people wanted to hop on the Internet. In a
> > way, NATs helped people keep their trust in IP and in the engineering
> > community as a whole to come up with solutions that meet the need of the
> > time.
>
> the latter statement seems a bit extreme. one could as easily make the
> statement that NATs are giving the engineering community a bad reputation
> in the eyes of the public, given that so many problems are now being caused
> by them. (also an extreme statement, but no less so than the first one)
>
I wasnt meaning to make an extreme statement. You are right; Neither of
the statements by itself is complete. Fair is somewhere in the middle.
> I'd rather just say that (a) NATs are a short-term fix with limited
> applicability, (b) for the long term general solution we will need
> longer addresses - as in IPv6, and (c) with careful definition of
> adaptation mechanisms such as NAT-PT and 6to4, devices with NAT
> and ALG functionality can be part of a transition path to IPv6.
>
That sounds good. Thanks.
> > There are some folks who believe NATs are behind the creation of private
> > addresses. The fact of the matter of the matter is the other way around.
> > People have been using private addresses to build their networks; People
> > change their providers, but do not want to renumber their networks each
> > time they change their providers. NATs were able to provide connetivity
> > to external world without requiring them to renumber their addresses in
> > the private network.
>
> absolutely true.
>
> > If nothing else, I would say that NATs were able to bring to bear an
> > awareness in the minds of protocol/application designers a need to
> > seperate names and addresses.
>
> though folks are indeed looking into the implications of such a separation,
> it's far from clear that this is a 'need'. every additional layer
> of indirection imposes a cost in terms of money, performance, reliability,
> and flexibility - all of which need to be weighted against whatever
> advantages might be obtained from such a separation.
>
Address-renumbering and host-mobility come to mind as areas that can benefit
from seperation of name and address semantics. Surely, this should be weighed
against other metrics, as you say. No one solution fits all.
> Keith
regards,
suresh
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
