On 11 Mar 2002 at 21:01, Devdas Bhagat wrote: > 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.
Umm.. OK. Let's say all dial-up connections on private space. One server handles 128 incoming calls. That server has public IP. So it can effectively route to any of machines that are dialing in that machine. Repeat the scheme for every server that handles incoming dial-ups. > 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:) I guess in scheme above it's possible to connect from other ISP. > 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. I guess that's unsurpassable unless there is H323 proxy. I'm sorry if I am sounding increasingly stupid but all I want to see is if public IPs are used in a bit better/efficient manner. NAT or not I don't care. I believe some part of client connections can be converted to private IP space. Shridhar _______________________________________________ linux-india-help mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-india-help
