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.
That's an artifact of the (unforeseen at the time) transition from
application proxy-based firewalls to NAT-based firewalls. Still had
nothing to do with concerns regarding addresses availability, which
wouldn't attain critical mass for several years.
Roger Marquis
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
