In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "J. Noel Chiappa" writes
:
>I mean, I can understand it is a temporary thing, e.g. if one company buys
>another, and in gluing the networks together they temporarily leave the
>bought company behind a NAT, but interface it to the world via the main
>corporation's gateway/NAT. But using a NAT box adds a ration of complexity
>(which is always bad and a source of potential problems), and using layers of
>them increases the complexity, with attendant complexity costs. I have a hard
>time understanding why people would add that much complexity, without a
>darned good reason.
>
>I mean, once you're behind a NAT box, you've got a *lot* of addresses to play
>with (how many, exactly, depends on how you're doing it). This is puzzling to
>me - what configurations are there out there that demand more address space,
>internally, than you already get with one layer of NAT box? Or is there some
>other reason I haven't figured out to have layers of address space?
Generally, this happens not because of an address shortage, but because
of unforeseen interconnections between NATted sites.
--Steve Bellovin
