[arin-ppml] IPv4 Depletion as an ARIN policy concern
bill at herrin.us
Mon Nov 2 21:15:08 EST 2009
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2009, at 3:41 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.com>
>>> NAT started out as a kludgy local workaround and will always pretty much
>>> a local workaround.
>> NAT started out as an improvement on SOCKS that allowed most
>> applications to work unmodified. Understand why folks wanted the
>> latter and you'll understand why they want the former.
> I don't buy this...
IIRC, SOCKS came out in '92, TIS came along in '94 with a DARPA-funded
set of ALG's which were better. Then they improved those ALGs into
something they called "transparent proxyies" in their expensive
commercial firewall. That was the first thing that looked like what we
today call a NAT and what Cisco still insists on calling PAT.
Non-overloaded NAT came from a different direction, I'm not sure
where. I'm almost willing to buy the notion that stateful firewalls
with decent dynamic address management provides comparable capability
to non-overloaded NAT.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the ARIN-PPML