On 6/8/07, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 07 June 2007, Simon Hobson wrote: > > I think by now you'll have got the idea that I think there is nothing > > positive about NAT > > NO, on the contrary, I see a lot of chest thumping and half baked > fud having nothing at all to do with solving the OP's problem. > > Bridging a VMware guest machine requires the availability of > a second IP and aliasing the nic. Neither of these is always > a solution, some times you are not allowed a second IP, and > some wireless nics can't be bridged. But the fundamental problem NAT is directed at is one that should be fixed - not enough IPs. Why doesn't your host give you a /24 block of addresses with your current internet service? There aren't enough to go around. IPv6 is (among other things) an attempt to fix that.
> So thanks for the tirade, (but No thanks, really) but its totally out of place > on a list dealing with Shorewall, which is most often used to make > firewalls using... You guessed it, NAT. That doesn't make NAT necessary or good. It's simply that in most cases there aren't enough IPs to go around. If there were, NAT would be (IMO) useless. Will ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
