RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...

["woody weaver" <woody () callisma com>]

I'm not sure who was first, in terms of IOS NAT and ip_masq.  If memory
serves (and it usually doesn't) then 11.2 was released around Aug 97.  I
don't see any easy way to identify the release date.

However, I think the linux code is older, although of course its largely
based upon the BSD firewall code.

The online source log shows
  38  * Masquerading functionality
  39  *
  40  * Copyright (c) 1994 Pauline Middelink
  41  *
  42  * The pieces which added masquerading functionality are totally
  43  * my responsibility and have nothing to with the original authors
  44  * copyright or doing.
  45  *
  46  * Parts distributed under GPL.
  47  *
  48  * Fixes:
  49  *      Pauline Middelink       :       Added masquerading.
  50  *      Alan Cox                :       Fixed an error in the merge.
  51  *      Thomas Quinot           :       Fixed port spoofing.
  52  *      Alan Cox                :       Cleaned up retransmits in
spoofing.
  53  *      Alan Cox                :       Cleaned up length setting.
  54  *      Wouter Gadeyne          :       Fixed masquerading support of
ftp PORT commands
  55  *
  56  *      Juan Jose Ciarlante     :       Masquerading code moved to
ip_masq.c

But Cisco was promoting NAT much earlier.  They bought the old NTI hardware
(now called the PIX), and its primary purpose in life was NAT -- the company
was called Network Translations Inc.  Looks like my first PIX install was 3
July 1996, so that predates IOS installations, I think.

--woody

On Sunday, September 09, 2001 6:22 AM, Circusnuts wrote:
> Yep- NAT showed up in Cisco IOS in the 11.2 version.  I am
[..]
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adam McKenna" <adam-nanog () flounder net>
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 3:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
>
> > On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 10:29:21PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > ip_masq started out as a cheap way to cheat ISPs that
> wouldn't allocate
> IP
> > > addrs to dial-up users (home users have no need for a
> LAN?), or wanted
> to
> > > charge an arm'n'leg for every IP addr. This irked the
> Linux community
> > > sufficiently that they wrote a "cure". Unfortunately, the
> popularity of
> the
> > > "cure" superceded the need.
> >
> > Erm, sorry, but NAT was alive and well on Cisco routers
> long before it was
> in
> > the Linux kernel.