----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Andrews" <[email protected]>
> > You'll have to document "everyone has to work harder to provide me > > services"; > > this is not my first rodeo, and TTBOMK, it's *transparent* to the > > other end > > of any connection out of my edge network that it's NATted at my end. > > > > As for incoming connections, it's transparent to them as well -- and > > which > > ones are valid targets for such connections *is a policy decision of > > mine*, not subject to external opinion. > > > > Could you clarify, in some detail, precisely how you get to TotC, > > Blake? > > You are going to want the your clients to work well with your NAT. > Your vendor is going to have to spend money to do this. The cost > of doing this will be passed onto everyone else that buys this > client as a direct monetory cost and/or extra complexity in the > product. The later also increases the cost in maintaining the > product. It also stops the vendor developing other products as it > takes additional resources to do this work. So far as I can tell, Mark, the only place where this becomes an issue is in the design of protocols which violate layer independence[1] by baking external transport layer address into fields in higher-layer frames; this in inherently Broken As Designed, and isn't my fault, or problem. I'll point out that such protocols will have to be fixed *anyway*, as transitioning to IPv6 will break them as well. If you merely meant "client operating systems", then I'm going back to "transparent"; please itemize how NAT at the edge of my edge network negatively affects the operations of a client OS, absent the specific broken protocols mentioned above. Next argument? :-) Cheers, -- jra [1] I originally wrote "lawyer independence"; that's funny, but too far off-meaning to leave in. :-)
