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
"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
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
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
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
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