Subject: Re: OT: A Routing question ...
To: None <netbsd-help@netbsd.org, netbsd-users@netbsd.org>
From: Rob Windsor <windsor@warthog.com>
List: netbsd-users
Date: 06/29/2002 23:19:50
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:30:37 EDT, verily did Keith Moore write:

>> Is is valid to have a DHCP/NAT network defined as 10.0.0.0/24 contain
>> a member like 10.0.0.2 that acts as another DHCP/NAT router using
>> 10.0.1.X/24 as it's address pool?

>> This just doesn't look right to me ...

> Given that NATs violate the internet protocol anyway, once you've
> decided to use NATs, any question of validity is moot.  The only
> 'valid' way to use NATs is to turn them off.

Which 'internet protocol' are you referring to?  The one(s) defined by 
RFCs?

NAT can be also found in the RFCs.  You can start with 1918 and dig to 
your hearts content.

Rob++
----------------------------------------
Internet: windsor@warthog.com                             __o
Life: Rob@Carrollton.Texas.USA.Earth                    _`\<,_
                                                       (_)/ (_)
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful.