From: Howard C. Berkowitz (hcb@gettcomm.com)
Date: Sat May 08 2004 - 19:03:56 GMT-3
At 3:42 PM -0400 5/8/04, MMoniz wrote:
>I understand what you mean now...if he is trying to reach the real owners of
>the 67.8.x.x,
>then yes that can be an internal issue.
>
>So internal NAT may be the way to fix this. Not pretty nor would I want to
>have to deal with that.
>
>It may be tough but I think the real solution for this would be internal
>re-addressing.
>
I certainly agree. Sooner or later, enterprises of any size don't
simply need to renumber, but set things up to be
renumbering-friendly, a term I started using when I wrote RFC 2072.
(http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2072.txt)
It's a continuing message running through my books and presentations.
Unfortunately, there are always the pointy-headed bosses that don't
want to take time renumbering, and won't enforce application
programming standards that make applications address-independent. As
the saying goes, "you can pay me now or you can pay me later."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 11:12:07 GMT-3