From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <20001117235638.5280.qmail@g.bio.cse.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] IL and NAT 
In-Reply-To: Message from Christopher Nielsen <cnielsen@pobox.com> 
   of "Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:48:43 PST." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0011171538220.43314-100000@cassandra.foobarbaz.net> 
From: Scott Schwartz <schwartz@bio.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 18:56:38 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2c49ea3c-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

| My gut response is bollocks, but is there any reason that IL
| wouldn't work through NAT other than Cisco hasn't written
| the code to handle it? 

That's exactly the problem with NAT.  Every application has to be
specially hacked into the firewall.

To my way of thinking, it's much nicer to import /net from the firewall
instead.