From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] IL and NAT 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:42:05."
             <E13xCv7-000E0k-0X@anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net> 
References: <E13xCv7-000E0k-0X@anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net> 
From: Theo Honohan <theoh@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Message-Id: <E13xDE0-0004ne-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 19:00:32 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2cae455e-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

nigel@9fs.org wrote:
> 
> Before we are too down on NAT implementations, there is a distinction
> between NAT and NAPT, according to various RFCs and associated
> documents.

Yes, quite.  I didn't mean to be "down on" simple NAT implementations;
OTOH, I do still think it's a fair to say that you need to do both NAT
and NAPT to be a viable product, these days.