Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
RE: Free NAT for NT?
From: dwelch () phoneboy com
Date: 9 Sep 1999 22:59:42 -0700
On Wed, 08 September 1999, "LeGrow, Matt" wrote:
Personally the first time I brought my house LAN onto the internet securely and in less than five minutes with a spare 486 and Linux IP Masquerading I was thanking the gods for NAT, and wondering why NT didn't have the same.
This is probably my best argument *for* NAT. Does each one of your systems need it's own IP address on the Internet? Does each one of your systems in a company need it's own IP address? Generally not. I think everyone designing protocols should get over the idea that embedding an IP address inside the packet somewhere is necessary. NAT breaks just about anything that is based on this assumption. -- PhoneBoy -- Dameon D. Welch, a.k.a. PhoneBoy (dwelch () phoneboy com) Check Point FireWall-1 FAQs at http://www.phoneboy.com/fw1/ The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of anyone else. -- Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account http://www.uswestmail.net
Current thread:
- Re: Free NAT for NT?, (continued)
- Re: Free NAT for NT? Mailing Lists (Sep 07)
- Re: Free NAT for NT? Robert Graham (Sep 07)
- Re: Free NAT for NT? dwelch (Sep 07)
- Re: Free NAT for NT? Carl Brewer (Sep 07)
- Re: Free NAT for NT? Darren Reed (Sep 08)
- Re: Free NAT for NT? Tyler Singletary (Sep 08)
- Re: Free NAT for NT? Mikael Olsson (Sep 08)
- Re: Free NAT for NT? Darren Reed (Sep 09)
- RE: Free NAT for NT? LeGrow, Matt (Sep 08)
- Re: Free NAT for NT? Steven M. Bellovin (Sep 09)
- RE: Free NAT for NT? dwelch (Sep 10)
- RE: Free NAT for NT? Garman, Christopher (Sep 10)