RE: solution to NAT and multihoming

2001-01-29 Thread James P. Salsman
If you want to be part of the global address space and you are behind a NAT box, get a PPP account outside your NAT box and connect to it with TCP or SSH or SSL or UDP or HTTP or whatever (see for example the use of PPP over telnet, in the www.ora.com Turtle PPP book.) What IPv4 NAT issue

Re: solution to NAT and multihoming

2001-01-29 Thread Perry E. Metzger
"James P. Salsman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you want to be part of the global address space and you are behind a NAT box, get a PPP account outside your NAT box and connect to it with TCP or SSH or SSL or UDP or HTTP or whatever (see for example the use of PPP over telnet, in the

Re: solution to NAT and multihoming

2001-01-26 Thread Jon Crowcroft
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

Re: solution to NAT and multihoming

2001-01-26 Thread Kevin Farley
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

Re: solution to NAT and multihoming

2001-01-26 Thread Keith Moore
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

Re: solution to NAT and multihoming

2001-01-26 Thread Kevin Farley
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

Re: solution to NAT and multihoming

2001-01-26 Thread Keith Moore
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

RE: solution to NAT and multihoming

2001-01-26 Thread Bernard Aboba
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

RE: solution to NAT and multihoming

2001-01-26 Thread Larry Foore
26, 2001 2:26 PM To: Kevin Farley Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: solution to NAT and multihoming On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Kevin Farley wrote: - no, not everyone wants to run every conceivable application/protocol to their client machines, they are happy with the subset they chose. you have