RE: Why people by NATs

>> Peter Ford wrote:
>> I do vehemently agree with your last paragraph.  In some
>> sense, you are saying that NAT is an intrinsic part of the
>> nominal "residential gateway" (could be expanded for soho
>> and small/medium business).

> Eric S. Raymond wrote
> Indeed. I think this is true.

There is nothing more truely than this. Before all this
half-true-half-false discussion about the relation between NAT and
security, the primary reason early users bought Linksys and precursors
was for the NAT feature. NAT is an intrinsic part not only of the
nominal "residential gateway" but also of many larger networks.

> Several people on this list have tried to tell me that I
> don't really want the IP address space on my local net to
> be decoupled from the server address. They are wrong. I want
> to be able to change ISPs by fixing *one* IP address in
> *one* place, and I want to control the mapping from global
> IP addresses to local ones.  This desire has nothing to do
> with IPv4 vs. IPv6 and everything to do with wanting to be
> able to make only small, conservative changes in my network
> configuration rather than having to completely disrupt it.
> Once again, I don't think my situation is unique.

Of course it's not, you are among the millions that do the same.

> For somebody administering a network of 100 machines, the
> hassle cost of IP renumbering would be twenty times larger.

It's actually a lot worse than many think. Anyone here that has actually
done it cares to comment on how easy and fast it is to renumber a
Windows Domain Controller that is a global catalog server and an
operations master? :-D

Michel.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf