J
jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk
On Jul 22, 11:44 pm, Leythos <v...@nowhere.lan> wrote:
> In article <1185142179.733331.202...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>
> > A DSL device that doesn't use NAT is so hard to find, I don't know
> > anybody in the UK that has one.
>
> > I'm asking this as a theoretical question , in the sense that i'm not
> > considering recommending them over NAT, so you needn't fear that!
>
> You don't want to look at cheap devices then, you want to use a Firewall
> Appliance in "Drop-In" mode - it still filters traffic based on rules,
> but it allows all ports (jacks) to have the same public IP.
>
> There is also 1:1 NAT, so that a single PUBLIC IP is routed to a single
> LAN IP.
>
> Why would you not want NAT?
>
> --
>
> Leythos
I would use NAT. But i'm wondering, theoretically, and since you say
it's a shame some end users don't use NAT, and ISPs should make it
mandatory.
What end users on DSL, don't use NAT . What devices are they buying,
can you link me to any? presumably you've seen some.
> In article <1185142179.733331.202...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>
> > A DSL device that doesn't use NAT is so hard to find, I don't know
> > anybody in the UK that has one.
>
> > I'm asking this as a theoretical question , in the sense that i'm not
> > considering recommending them over NAT, so you needn't fear that!
>
> You don't want to look at cheap devices then, you want to use a Firewall
> Appliance in "Drop-In" mode - it still filters traffic based on rules,
> but it allows all ports (jacks) to have the same public IP.
>
> There is also 1:1 NAT, so that a single PUBLIC IP is routed to a single
> LAN IP.
>
> Why would you not want NAT?
>
> --
>
> Leythos
I would use NAT. But i'm wondering, theoretically, and since you say
it's a shame some end users don't use NAT, and ISPs should make it
mandatory.
What end users on DSL, don't use NAT . What devices are they buying,
can you link me to any? presumably you've seen some.