| 1 |
On 03/10/2013 05:43 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/03/2013 23:07, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> All those examples you give are much like a bunch of home machines |
| 4 |
>>>> sitting behind a NAT gateway onto the internet. That's actually OK |
| 5 |
>>>> and I reckon that is the intended use of NAT. |
| 6 |
>> I want to point out that that's only true if the home network has at |
| 7 |
>> least one public IP. If you've got NAT 4x4, you're kinda screwed. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> (Alan will understand that, but for those unfamiliar with it, that |
| 10 |
>> basically means that if your home router is given an RFC1918 address by |
| 11 |
>> your ISP, port forwarding isn't going to do squat for you.) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I'm getting images of NATted traffic being NATted. My head just exploded. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Yup. That's the state of small residential ISPs right now, and why it's |
| 17 |
so critical to get IPv6 deployed. |
Archives