In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jon Crowcroft typed:
if multihoming is killing routing coz default free zone routers have
too many entries
and NAT is killing users coz they can't get always on addresses
why not have multihomed sites (aren't they usually server/core
provider sites) LEASE
Title: IP
i need help.. how can i find an IP address that it is static or Dynamic..can u help me?
-Original Message-
From: Jon Crowcroft [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 3:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: solution to NAT and multihoming
In
Keith, Ed, others...
I have been following this entire line of discussion with some
amusement and some frustration. I would like to share a couple of
humble thoughts on this subject from my own perspective.
- yes, NAT in general restricts the applications and/or protocols that
can be accessed
Kevin,
I don't disagree with most of your assertions, except perhaps one or two.
Here's the gap in a nutshell:
The fact that NATs are widely deployed means that several quite useful
applications are having great difficulty being deployed. You may not
think you want to participate in the great
Can people *please* trim the CC list on this thread - and in particular, make
sure to remove "Info-Explorer"? I'm so tired of getting three copies of
everything...
Noel
Keith,
Thank you for your insightful response to my posting. Is it fair to say
then, that in the year 2001, there appears to be no widely deployable
alternative to NAT?
Kevin
--- Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin,
I don't disagree with most of your assertions, except perhaps one
Thank you for your insightful response to my posting. Is it fair to say
then, that in the year 2001, there appears to be no widely deployable
alternative to NAT?
depends on which aspect of NAT you're thinking of.
6to4 is deployable now. some of the other things could potentially
be
Wow. After dozens of emails, finally a list of implementable
work items that could improve the situation ;)
I particularly like the IPv6 over UDP idea, after having
encountered several NATs that can't handle anything other than
TCP and UDP. Though you've got to be aware of the NAT state timeout
Mr. Wood,
Philosophically, I agree with your points in the previous email.
Reality dictates another perspective. A good philosophy does not
necessarily translate to realizable solutions.
If this was a discussion on whether or not NAT should be used in the IPv4
Internet, your points would be
