From owner-freebsd-isp  Sat Sep 13 22:26:33 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-isp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA22610
          for isp-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 22:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phil.digitaladvantage.net (phil.digitaladvantage.net [207.40.157.13])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA22604
          for <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 22:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phil.digitaladvantage.net (phil.digitaladvantage.net [207.40.157.13]) by phil.digitaladvantage.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA27933 for <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:09:53 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:09:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Russ Panula <zeeb@digitaladvantage.net>
To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: NAT for dialups?
In-Reply-To: <19970913141335.54864@hydrogen.nike.efn.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970914000200.27346C-100000@phil.digitaladvantage.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

The one problem with using NAT for dialups are those applications that
require unique client IP addresses to operate.

The one that comes to mind is Quake.  Two clients behind a NAT box
connecting to the same Quake server will not be able to connect.  Poor
design on Id's part, but it is one factor you may want to consider since
that may not be the only application affected.

Regards,
Russ