> >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Fourth, lots of folks (me included) happen to find it
> >> convenient to use NAT between my site/house/office and my
> >> upstream provider.
> Keith> do you also find it "convenient" that NAT has effectively
> Keith> thwarted the deployment of huge numbers of new
> Keith> applications, significantly raised the cost of deploying
> Keith> others, and harmed the reliability of all applications?
>
> I find the tradeoffs work in favor of NAT; I expect this to be true
> both for V4 and V6.
Try tftp booting two devices from behind a NAT w/o a tftp
ALG.
Yes this is a obscure case but is is a perfect example of
why NAT is evil. Things that just should work fail and
there is no end user fix.
With a plain firewall you can add rules to let the reply
traffic through.
With a NAT you have to choose which device gets to boot as
you can't port forward both sets of replies.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
