On 2013-04-29 12:53, Nicholas Leippe wrote:
> With fully routable ip addresses you have no need for NAT on your router in
> the case you mention.
If you have enough IP addresses, which for many American households,
is not a viable approach. Additionally, this approach is (in general)
bad for the internet -- IPv4 depletion is happening fast enough without
people using external IPs without good, solid rationale.
> The ISP would simply route all traffic destined for any address in your
> block to your router, and you simply configure your router's routing table
> and you're done.
With Setup B, correct. With Setup A, they're simply bridged onto your
physical interface -- you can't route them without engaging in some
shenanigans like proxy ARP or whatnot.
> Your message didn't clearly distinguish what setup A vs setup B was, so I'm
> not sure how to answer your last question.
No, but the message to which Dan is was replying (see Corey Edwards'
post from 2013-04-25) absolutely did.
Jima
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
