sigh. another essay without actual content. * Daniel Ouellet <dan...@presscom.net> [2012-10-24 20:00]: > NAT always makes connectivity less efficient
yeah, rrrrright. > NAT was sadly a quick way to setup security b***s***. > NAT needs to process every packets opposed to the !NAT case, where a router doesn't have to "process" every packet. rrright. > changed the header both in incoming and outgoing traffic opposed to the !NAT case, rrrrrrrrright. > and as bandwidth keep increasing only > make the totally not optimize NAT table getting bigger parser error > as more > traffic is present and increase jitter, latency, etc. Much more > powerful router needs to be used and many of the sadly loved > firewall appliance by some admin like the SonicWall and the like > running out of power on intensive UDP traffic and do not allow the > end users to actually get the benefit of their increase line > capacity that are more common these days! one thing is clear: you have no clue what you are talking about. once stateful firewalling is in place, the cost of NAT is neglible. > IN IPv6, the smallest assigned to remote site is so big anyway and > based on the RFC recommendation to provide a /48 to remote site and > even a /56 to a single house, how could anyone possibly think he/she > would even run of IP's and need NAT64? there are gazillion more (very very valid) use cases for NAT than to preserve IP addresses. > Isn't it just a side effect of a sadly miss guided use of NAT in the only "miss guided" person here is you. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de, Full-Service ISP Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services. Dedicated Servers, Root to Fully Managed Henning Brauer Consulting, http://henningbrauer.com/
