Router+NAT (was: Disgusted with DSL)

[Robert Citek <rwcitek@alum.calberkeley.org>]

On Jul 20, 2005, at 5:10 AM, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

> <nitpick>
> Isn't [one-to-many] NAT (aka NAT/PAT) what people refer to as the
> "router"** anyway?  I mean, it's the Network Address Translation /  
> Port
> Address Translation (NAT/PAT) that handles the actual communication**
> between the two networks**?
>
> **And not actually any routing?  Hence why it's not really "router 
> +NAT"
> but just "'router' aka NAT"?
> </nitpick>
>
> Don't mean to be anal on this, but I'm starting nitpick more because I
> had a client months back that was so thick on what a "router" is  
> that I
> couldn't get them to understand they needed a "real router."  I.e.,  
> they
> had more than one internal subnet to their main location (as well as
> several other locations).
>

Yes, a NAT[1] is a router[2].  But as you mention NAT is becoming so  
ubiquitous that in most people's minds NAT is the only type of  
router.  For better or worse, "Quantity has the quality of its own."

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Router

Regards,
- Robert
http://www.cwelug.org/downloads
Help others get OpenSource software.  Distribute FLOSS
for Windows, Linux, *BSD, and MacOS X with BitTorrent



-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.