In message <f55ff9c4fdb76643ae0cec06d0f5ceb3048557b...@skyhawk>, Chris Engel wr ites: > Keith, > > The idea that Network Administrators and Corporate IT are some-how less quali > fied to weigh the cost/benefits of choosing to use NAT vs specific applicatio > ns then their end users are is a strange notion to say the least. As is the i > dea that they don't have to deal with the consequences of those decisions.
Chris, its not just the network that uses a NAT that pays for the cost of the NAT. Every network user pays for the cost of NAT in higher products costs incured from needing to provide products that will work in the presence of NAT even if that don't actually use a NAT or not. People are anti NAT because this is a unnecessary cost that pro NAT people are imposing on everyone else. It an added complication that is not needed. NAT44 was a necessary evil as we had effectively run out IPv4 addresses. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
