<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On 5/17/11 12:45 PM, Blake Dunlap wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTi=V+F-8nfGQBcw85DpyxnFCx0Vr1Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:27, Chris Engel <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:cengel@conxeo.com">cengel@conxeo.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<div class="h5">
(snip)<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
I know EXACTLY what NAT does. It does EXACTLY what I INTEND it
to do. <br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
(snip some more)<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTi=V+F-8nfGQBcw85DpyxnFCx0Vr1Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
None of what you just said you want, has anything to do with NAT.
This is what leads people to believe you don't know what NAT does,
even while you yell that you do.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
And even leaving that aside, I suspect most people here are at least
resigned to NAT at the edge of the end-user network, where it can
indeed be made to do just what the owner of the network desires, or
believes he desires. What I, and I suspect many others, find much
more troubling is the thought of an arbitrary number of service
providers, at an arbitrary number of points on the network,
performing NAT. That most assuredly will not result in exactly what
the customer wants, assuming they want anything the least bit more
interesting than surfing the web and picking up their e-mail.<br>
<br>
(My view on this is colored by the fact that I dislike trying to
explain to customers why their SIP softphone they're trying to use
on a 4th tier ISP in Egypt, which has at least 2 layers of NAT
between him and the "Internet proper," just isn't going to work like
it does at home.)<br>
<br>
--Jon Radel<br>
</body>
</html>