On 11/03/02 19:16 +0530, Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > I don't understand why it won't work(OK My network knowledge is dead as dodo > but) if one connection can be NATed wonder why not all of them. It works > behind > proxies and firewall as I am doing in my company. Why can't it work for a City > ISP.(OK willpower to do that is excluded as objection. That's not > technical..) No, it doesn't work that way. You need routable IPs, minimally at one end. Try connecting to a system without a routable IP from another without a routable IP. The whole purpose of NAT is to put a kludged up solution to IP scarcity in ipv4. Just because it works, does not mean its a good thing.
> > OTOH it would lead to local services that will not need public IP. Say I want > to run a food delivery rental service in Pune, I don't need to expose it to But then, how do I connect to your PC from another ISP? Did you forget that? NATing servers is a bad idea. NATing clients is acceptable, but not good either. and I sure as hell dislike passive ftp in my servers:) > world(Unless I open franchise). I can run it off cheap cable network and home > PC. > > Think it as a biig lan for a city or so... I really wonder if it's good use of > public ips given that majority of machines in that area are going to > be client P2P : which is the client and which is the server? I want to run a web server on my dialup? Can';t do it with NAT. Protocols like H323 which embed the client IP into the packet data (not just the headers) break due to NAT. Plenty of problems on the Net. If ytou want to just surf, then NAT is acceptable. Devdas Bhagat _______________________________________________ linux-india-help mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-india-help
