> Once upon a time Chris Gauthier shaped the electrons to say...
> >This might be a silly/useless question, but I was wondering if Livingston
> >had any plans in the near future of developing support for NAT?
>
> This came up just a couple of weeks ago...
>
> Yes, we are already well along in developing NAT. I believe the current plan
> is for straight NAT (many-to-many translation) first, with Proxy-NAT
> (one-to-many) following.
Yes I can confirm this as I just had a convo with Bri a few weeks
ago about it. I mentioned that many to one (proxy nat) was MUCH MORE
desireable than many to many, at least for me and my customers. We have
grown very fast and our upstream provider is very stingy with address
space. Most of my customers do NOT need 30 IP addresses on the internet,
even tho they have 30 machines in their office.
Right now what I do, is for a good sized office, they connect to an
IPRoute box via one ethernet segment. Then the IPRoute box connects via
ethernet to a pipe 50 (soon to be OR-U as soon as you get me some
compression). The 50 calls our MAX (soon to me PM 3 as soon as you get me
some compression). All of them can surf with 1 ip address. But I dont like
having to explain what that extra box is (the iproute box). Plus its one
extra thing to break.
BTW, Ascend does NAT, but I believe its also the MANY TO MANY flavour. I
have not checked back with them recently, nor have I received any of my
weekly flood of brochures lately either. I think they decided to lay off
the mail marketing for a while.
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
Jake Messinger 713-772-6690 jake@ams.com
Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. jake@uh.edu
8300 Bissonnet #400
Houston, Texas 77074 http://www.ams.com/~jake
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~