[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address consumption to work around a shortage of addresses.
>> It does not solve any other problem(s).
> In all fairness, that's not really true. It just doesn't solve other problems in an optimal way.
> Also, NAT44 implies address oversubscription while NAT66 doesn't necessarily have such a requirement.
> Not that I love NAT66, but let's at least be honest about it.
Perhaps a better way to put it is:
There are better solutions in IPv6 to any of the problems NAT44 is alleged to solve, regardless of whether you are talking about overloaded NAT44 (which some people refer to as PAT) or any other form of NAT.
- From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter)
- From: davei at otd.com (Dave Israel)
- From: drais at icantclick.org (david raistrick)
- From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
- From: bensons at queuefull.net (Benson Schliesser)