Are there any NAT solutions which handle millions of hosts? Are
we having a discussion about unicorns?
No. Which is why "not that existing ones have been." And "wreak of havoc
occurs _long_ before" refers to the hypothetical gateway being brought down
with far fewer connections, irrespective of which OS it ran. There remained
the question of which OS/approach required less resources for performing
the task at hand. The resolution I think was that NAT requires less
resources but creates more hassle. Some 9fans pointed out the trade-off
between elegance and performance. Some others pointed out the technical
details and what could/could not be done with each approach. The most
notable comment, in my opinion, was Ron Minnich's that brought to light the
single essentially and irrefutably advantageous feature of Plan 9's
approach.
I believe your are a little late with your remark. The issue has been
resolved.
--On Monday, November 17, 2008 5:20 AM -0500 Dave Eckhardt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Every sensible NAT solution must be implemented with that in
mind--not that existing ones have been. Even imagining persistent
connections from an entire Class A network makes one shudder.
Needless to say, the wreak of havoc occurs _long_ before over 16
million hosts need persistent connections.
Especially since you get only 64k TCP connections between any pair
of IP addresses, e.g., between a NAT box and www.cnn.com.
Are there any NAT solutions which handle millions of hosts? Are
we having a discussion about unicorns?
Dave Eckhardt
