Re: quietly....

[John Payne <john () sackheads org>]

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 () 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.