nanog mailing list archives
Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
From: Jon Mansey <jon_mansey () verestar com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:26:02 -0700
It seems a pretty simple argument to me.Do I want as many people using (and maybe _buying_, what a concept!) my app as possible with the least amount of network clue and setup headaches, or do I want to eliminate most of the corporate, SOHO, cable, DSL, Linux population because I cant be bothered to develop my app to be NAT-friendly.
Duh!All the previous times this discussion has arisen here, I have concluded that "real" IPs should only be owned and used by folks with clue, everyone else gets a NATed IP. Discuss.
jm
> > |> True... neither does a well-firewalled LAN.> > There is a substantial difference between broken access and controlled > access. Yes, but there are plenty of apps that will not work if you do not leave open large, arbitrary ranges of udp ports. This is fundamentally incompatible with most sane firewalls. Or NAT. Why write a protocol that way? Just to prove NAT sucks? CharlesNo, because they were either written before NAT existed and tried hard to conform to the end2end principles of Internet Architecture or they were written after NAT existed and tried hard to conform to the end2end principles of Internet Architecture. NAT violates the end2end principles of the Internet Architecture by placing one or more policy abstraction layer(s) between the endpoints. That said, NAT is a tool in the tool box. I'd like to think that its worth the effort to try and recover true end2end. --bill
-- jon_mansey () verestar com Chief Science Officer ------------------------------------------------------------------ Verestar Networks, Inc. http://www.verestar.com 1901 Main St. tel (310) 382 3300 Santa Monica, California 90405 fax (310) 382 3310 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ..., (continued)
- RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Brian Whalen (Sep 09)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Christian Kuhtz (Sep 09)
- RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Roeland Meyer (Sep 06)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Josh Richards (Sep 06)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Jeff Mcadams (Sep 06)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... David Howe (Sep 07)
- RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Roeland Meyer (Sep 06)
- RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Roeland Meyer (Sep 06)
- RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Charles Sprickman (Sep 07)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... bmanning (Sep 07)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Jon Mansey (Sep 07)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... bmanning (Sep 07)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 07)
- Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Scott Francis (Sep 07)
- RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ... Charles Sprickman (Sep 07)
- end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...) Mike Batchelor (Sep 07)
- Re: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...) Joel Jaeggli (Sep 07)
- Re: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...) Jon Mansey (Sep 07)
- Re[3]: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...) Richard Welty (Sep 07)
- Re: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...) Leo Bicknell (Sep 07)
- RE: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...) Mike Batchelor (Sep 07)
- Re: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...) Joel Baker (Sep 07)