Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
> Jody wrote:
>
>> Am I to understand this to mean that resolving this issue is not a priority
>> for the tahoe development team?
>>
>
> I don't mean to be rude at all, but I think you may be operating at a higher
> layer (application) than this problem calls for. The common wisdom is that
> double NAT'ing is bad (mmmkay?), especially idea if you're running anything
> that something else might need to connect to. Most ISPs that put their
> customers on NATs also operate a public-IP space VLAN for people that this
> causes problems for.
>
> Alternatively, get rid of your NAT device, which takes you down to the much
> more common (still kludgy) single-NAT environment. Obviously, use host
> firewalls in this case.
>
I started reading late, but I thought I'd point out that IPv6 is
supposed to fix this kind of thing. With its huge address space, NATing
really isn't necessary for technical reasons.
(Though who knows how Layer 8 of the OSI stack ("politics") is going to
play out.)
-Luke
_______________________________________________
tahoe-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://allmydata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
