nanog mailing list archives
Re: quietly....
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons () queuefull net>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:09:17 -0600
On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong 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).
In all fairness, that's not really true. It just doesn't solve other problems in an optimal way. Also, NAT44 implies address oversubscription while NAT66 doesn't necessarily have such a requirement. Not that I love NAT66, but let's at least be honest about it. Cheers, -Benson
Current thread:
- Re: quietly...., (continued)
- Re: quietly.... Jack Bates (Feb 01)
- Re: quietly.... Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 01)
- Re: quietly.... Dave Israel (Feb 01)
- Re: quietly.... Randy Carpenter (Feb 01)
- Re: quietly.... Dave Israel (Feb 01)
- Re: quietly.... david raistrick (Feb 01)
- Re: quietly.... Owen DeLong (Feb 01)
- Re: quietly.... Paul Graydon (Feb 01)
- Re: quietly.... david raistrick (Feb 01)
- Re: quietly.... Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 01)
- Re: quietly.... Benson Schliesser (Feb 01)
- Re: quietly.... Owen DeLong (Feb 01)
- Re: quietly.... John Payne (Feb 01)
- Re: quietly.... Owen DeLong (Feb 01)
- Re: quietly.... John Payne (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Roland Perry (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Owen DeLong (Feb 02)
- Re: quietly.... Roland Perry (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Mark Andrews (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Roland Perry (Feb 03)
- Re: quietly.... Mark Andrews (Feb 03)