W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > December 2002

Re: Application protocols and Address Translation

From: John Angelmo <john@veidit.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 16:01:30 +0100
Message-ID: <3DEB75CA.1050909@veidit.net>
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
CC: discuss@apps.ietf.org

Keith Moore wrote:

> >I think most ppl dosn't care about NAT as long as it works for them.
> I think that's probably true.  But the widespread deployment of
> NAT also means that people don't ever get a chance to see what new
> apps they could run if NAT weren't there - the presence of NATs
> means there's so little market for such apps that they can
> never succeed - either that or they require expensive workarounds.
> For instance, somebody has a product that lets you access your
> home machine from anywhere on the network.  It works by having
> your home machine maintain a connection to a central server,
> through which requests can be tunnelled back to your machine.

The thing is that you also need to make loads of tecnical ppl rethink 
their NAT habits, at my current job we use NAT, we have loads of public 
IPs but the head tech thinks that NAT is the easy way to go and that 
it's more secure than public IPs, every client that we install for now 
uses NAT.

Something that the apps group could do is to produce a white paper on 
the downsides of NAT and how easy it is to use regular IPs that could be 
  presented to IT managers.

Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 10:02:51 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tuesday, 24 February 2004 19:46:24 EST