> On Sat, 19 Jul 1997, MegaZone wrote:
>
> > 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.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I am assuming that straight NAT is
easier to implement, which is why it is being released first?
> 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.
I think they clearcut all the forests they could and have run out of
trees.... ;-)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288
Systems Administrator
Namesecure
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/