--- Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And yes, additional IP addresses were going to cost dramatically more. NAT
> > was a simple case of economics... but on the other hand, I don't experience
> > any "lack" because of it. I don't play UDP-based games or employ any of
> the
> > other relatively new protocols that are so sensitive to end-to-end-ness
> > (should they be? was that a valid assumption?), so a NAT is a great
> solution
> > for me.
>
> understood. and you may never miss any of those distributed applications
> or applications that want your end to be the "server" for the very reason
> that NAT prevents them from having enough market share to be successful.
>
> i.e. just because you don't know what you're missing doesn't mean that NAT
> hasn't done you harm.
>
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. Having said this, I do believe, people who market NAT devices should
warn customers of the limitations and not pretend like there arent any.
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.
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. That in itself seems like an accomplishment.
> > NAT would be bad if an ISP were using it to artificially expand its address
> > space; the use of NAT at the "small-time" end user's site seems quite
> > practical and beneficial, especially in a world where ISPs are going to
> hold
> > up non-naive users for ransom. Cheers -- Ian
>
> if you think of NAT as a short-term strategy and are fully aware of its
> limitations, it probably won't cause you much harm as an individual.
>
> then again, there are dozens of products out there claiming to offer
> something like "internet connection sharing" without bothering to mention
> the limitations of that approach...which seems like misleading advertising
> at best.
>
I agree.
> Keith
>
>
regards,
suresh
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
