In message <[email protected]>, Roger Marquis writes: > >> Mark Andrews wrote: > >>> NAT44 was a necessary evil as we had effectively run out IPv4 addresses. > >> > >> This is false. NAT was implemented long, long before there were widesprea > d > >> concerns regarding the number of addresses. A larger reason for NAT was > >> that many of us were using non-routable addresses, as there was (and still > >> is) no business case for any of our internal addresses to be publically > >> routable. > > > > Well then you don't need NAT then. > > > > If you need to get packets back to internal machines from external > > machines then yes those addresses were routed. You just routed > > them in translated form. > > That's an artifact of the (unforeseen at the time) transition from > application proxy-based firewalls to NAT-based firewalls. Still had > nothing to do with concerns regarding addresses availability, which > wouldn't attain critical mass for several years.
And hosts didn't support more than one address on a interface and ... The reasons for using NAT back then have basically gone away. It really is just inertia and familiarity that keeps people asking for NAT despite all the harm its presense causes. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
