[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On Feb 1, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:56 PM, John Payne wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> 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).
>> That's a bold statement. Especially as you said NAT and not PAT.
> NAT, PAT, whatever... I'm willing to back it up.
NAT provides a solution to, lets call it, enterprise multihoming. Remote office with a local Internet connection, but failover through the corporate network.
In IPv4 this would likely be done with PAT, but I'm looking forward to being able to do something similar with NAT66 (or whatever it ends up being called) without blowing out my internal policies or having to maintain multiple addresses on each end point.
- From: lists at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
- From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews)