On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 10:29:21PM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> From: Eric A. Hall [mailto:ehall@ehsco.com] |> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 9:49 PM
|> > "Charles Sprickman" <spork@inch.com> |> |> > NAT has it's place, and we have many happy customers that are quite |> > pleased with their NAT'd connections; some simple, some fancy. |> |> NATs are a band-aid.
ip_masq started out as a cheap way to cheat ISPs that wouldn't allocate IP addrs to dial-up users (home users have no need for a LAN?), or wanted to charge an arm'n'leg for every IP addr. This irked the Linux community sufficiently that they wrote a "cure". Unfortunately, the popularity of the "cure" superceded the need.
Erm, sorry, but NAT was alive and well on Cisco routers long before it was in the Linux kernel. --Adam -- Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A