Well, in this case a device that is doing NAT (properly anyway)would replace
the ip and socket headers, much the way each router replaces physical
addresses.
-Chris Millikin
-----Original Message-----
From: Iliff, Tina [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 9:48 AM
To: 'Dave Robinson'; Keith Moore
Cc: M Dev; Sean Doran; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: NATs *ARE* evil!
Yes! TCP breaks due to the fact that "true" source/destination sockets
cannot be defined. The destination would not know where to send a response
except in the case where DNS is used...unless I need to do more reading
Tina Iliff
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Robinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 11:11 AM
To: Keith Moore
Cc: M Dev; Sean Doran; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: NATs *ARE* evil!
What's the problem with locally significant addresses? Having thousands of
10 networks will never present a problem unless those networks at some point
would like to talk to each other. Is that where this whole discussion is
going (or coming from) - that ultimately the more NAT'ing we do, the more
headaches we're creating for ourselves en route to true global connectivity?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 10:56 AM
To: Dave Robinson
Cc: Keith Moore; M Dev; Sean Doran; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NATs *ARE* evil!
because in a NATted network the same addresses are used in different
parts of the network. addresses are meaningless.
