By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation

Re:By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation by bluGill on Monday June 26, 2017 @04:45PM (#14640211)

> NAT is terrible from a network engineering perspective, it was mostly a patchwork to deal with the rapid expansion of the internet and the shortage of IPv4 space

NAT is very useful to the network engineer. NAT lets you turn one network into a different one on a simple one-to-one translations basis.

However NAP got mixed up with masquerading to the point where when someone says NAT they assume you also mean masquerading when in fact the two are different concepts. NAT when you are doing a many-to-one translations is a disaster in many ways, but it works just well enough (and face it, the alternatives don't exist)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation by kazen44 on Tuesday June 27, 2017 @11:10AM (#14646072)

ah well, i should have been more clear in my comment. PAT especially is a disaster.

One to One NAT translation is fine although it still breaks a lot of things, especially on the IPV6 side of things. (like MTU path discovery).

[ Parent | on HN ]