Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 09:34 08.12.99 -0800, Ed Gerck wrote:
>
> >So, perhaps the same company could also make a NAT that
> >any homeowner could use? Because if the problem of NATs is
> >easy of use, and this is the key being banged here (the NY School
> >Board example, etc.) then it is a problem of design. However,
> >if the problem is concept, in which way are NATs different
> >from gateways, conceptually speaking? And, gateways are
> >useful, no?
>
> I like Einar Stefferud's gateway one-liner:
> "All gateways lose information. Some do it more efficiently than others."
Technically, a gateway is used to interconnect a number of independent
networks so that hosts in the networks can communicate with one another
*without any change* to the respective networks, usually by means of a
database in a programmable device or devices that perform automatic
address translation in transmission and/or address and name translation in
reception for each formatted message.
So, if I know Stef, he was not being against a system (gateway) that lets each
one "do their own thing" and yet all communicate. His point was rather that
imperfection is a small price to pay for freedom ;-) ... and, the price is never
zero ;-))
> Someone once called this one "Alvestrand's equality":
> "Gateways = Pain".
>
> This was after too many years spent on email gateways.
:-) Communication results from the transfer of data. Gateways are exactly the
opposite.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
