In message <[email protected]>, Roger Marquis writes: > Mark Andrews wrote: > > NAT44 was a necessary evil as we had effectively run out IPv4 addresses. > > This is false. NAT was implemented long, long before there were widespread > concerns regarding the number of addresses. A larger reason for NAT was > that many of us were using non-routable addresses, as there was (and still > is) no business case for any of our internal addresses to be publically > routable.
Well then you don't need NAT then. If you need to get packets back to internal machines from external machines then yes those addresses were routed. You just routed them in translated form. 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
