Re: NAT question
From: Leythos (void_at_nowhere.lan)
Date: 07/28/05
- Previous message: Walter Roberson: "Re: Need to stop an attack"
- In reply to: Frankster: "Re: NAT question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:41:35 GMT
In article <cZ6dnZs5kYzMdXXfRVn-hw@giganews.com>, Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com
says...
> Interesting question. Answer A is right. However, the question itself has
> a *Ihidden* agenda. It *assumes* that the purpose of NAT (technically) is to
> *hide* something. Certainly that is one potential justification for using
> NAT, but, there are many other reasons. How 'bout, to save money by not
> needing to purchase more public IPs, for ease of administration with only
> one outside facing IP (could be internet could be another LAN segment), to
> allow email filtering on only one IP rather than tons of connected clients,
> etcetera.
>
> I just find it interesting the way the question was phrased, as if the only
> reason to use NAT was to "hide" something.
We used NAT routers in each training room - while the routers WAN port
was connected to our DMZ network, the routers isolated each class from
the other and still provided each class to the services in our DMZ.
NAT routers are a great way to isolate groups/locations from each other.
-- spam999free@rrohio.com remove 999 in order to email me
- Previous message: Walter Roberson: "Re: Need to stop an attack"
- In reply to: Frankster: "Re: NAT question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
