From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dave Eckhardt <davide+p9@cs.cmu.edu>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <E0773A318D87FB559ECD5B24@[192.168.1.2]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <16172.1226917223.1@lunacy.ugrad.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:20:23 -0500
Message-ID: <16173.1226917223@lunacy.ugrad.cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Do we have a catalog of 9P servers?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 474ca922-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Every sensible NAT solution must be implemented with that in
> mind--not that existing ones have been. Even imagining persistent
> connections from an entire Class A network makes one shudder.
> Needless to say, the wreak of havoc occurs _long_ before over 16
> million hosts need persistent connections.

Especially since you get only 64k TCP connections between any pair
of IP addresses, e.g., between a NAT box and www.cnn.com.

Are there any NAT solutions which handle millions of hosts?  Are
we having a discussion about unicorns?

Dave Eckhardt