On 28 Apr 99, at 23:46, Fuzzy Fox wrote about
"[Masq] Re: Can I do this?":
|...
| You mean you can tell the difference between IP Masq and NAT? I can't. :)
I'm not certain this is right, but I believe the main difference is
that plain NAT assumes a one-to-one mapping of external to internal
addresses. IOW a particular public IP *always* maps to the same
internal IP, so there is no need to remember connections. And since
incoming NAT (de-masqing) is not based on remembered outgoing
connections, there is no problem with handling internal servers. No
need for "port forwarding" hacks.
The trade-off is that with plain NAT, you need a public IP for each
machine that will have access to the net. Masquerading, with its
dynamic connection-based translation table, is required to allow
multiple local machines to share a single public IP.
Of course, the issue of protocols that embed IP information in the
data portion of packets is the same reguardless of whether you are
doing plain NAT or masquerading.
|...
- Fred Viles <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
Masq maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://tiffany.indyramp.com/mailman/listinfo/masq
Admin requests can be handled by web (above) or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
