![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
> NAT can be used for a variety of things. Perhaps we can agree that it's > a good hammer when the nail is a home network, and concentrate on what > to do about the large corporation issue. NAT is a good hammer for a home network if and only if the only purpose of a home network is to allow multiple web clients at home to talk to servers in the outside world. If you want to use a home network to be able to access your devices at home *from* the outside world - e.g. IP telephony, IP fax, instant messaging to your home, IP printing to your home printer from elsewhere, setting your vcr, setting your thermostat so that the house will be warm when you get there, checking the house temperature to see if the air conditioner has died again, taking a peek at the kid you've left home with the babysitter (or by himself) to see that he's okay, investigating the alert you got from your intrusion detection system, personal web server for home or home office - NATs start to look like a pretty poor hammer even for home use. (unless, of course, you think the purpose of hammers is to break things) OTOH, if you combine NAT with 6to4 for home networks, the picture starts to look a bit better. Think of 6to4 as the generic ALG that rids you of the need to have separate ALGs for most of the applications that NAT happens to break. Keith
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.