Well, they are classed 'non routable', but they are fully routable... A NAT device is somehow in the grey zone because it's connected to at least 2 networks. And somewhere in the device it route packets. But as you said, the packets also get translated which might not have been the original definition of a router... But if I were to choose between hub, switch, router, brouter, bridge or gateway, I would say router because that is closest to the function...
/Oscar
Eric (Deacon) wrote:
A router (by my reckoning, anyway) would be any device that routes packets between networks. A NAT device does this; a switch does not.
I think thats correct, be it $100 or $38,000 not including operating system (thanks Cisco) if it moves packets from IP network to another, its a router. No need for router racism.
Negative. RFC1918 addresses are also classed as 'non routable' addresses. The packets DO NOT get routed, they get translated, there's a difference between the 2, but most people buy into the marketing hoopla and don't wish to see that.
-- Eric (the Deacon remix)
_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
