From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] NAT vs /net Message-ID: <20010126092336.A1386@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <012901c08767$b6c7c2e0$0ab9c6d4@cybercable.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <012901c08767$b6c7c2e0$0ab9c6d4@cybercable.fr>; from Boyd Roberts on Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 08:15:07AM +0100 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:23:36 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 525df286-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 08:15:07AM +0100, Boyd Roberts wrote: > > NAT and UDP can be a real mess; some DNS servers refuse > to answer requests that don't have a source port of 53. > Granted that some DNS servers are too strict, but NAT is superfluous when you can PROXY the service, and DNS is perfectly suited to letting a host with the right privileges operate on your behalf. I find it a lot more of a bitch to have to commission and maintain two DNS services because with NAT you have internal and external DNS mappings :-( Which reminds me, if my PROXY is NetBSD - and a long way from here, at that, how do I get my Plan 9 network to use it? ++L