From owner-freebsd-isp Sat Sep 13 23:45:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA25361 for isp-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 23:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host1.texramp.net (root@host1.texramp.net [205.230.0.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA25347 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 23:45:40 -0700 (PDT) From: lashby@texramp.net Received: from admin.texramp.net (admin.texramp.net [205.230.0.200]) by host1.texramp.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA09218 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 01:50:15 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199709140650.BAA09218@host1.texramp.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 01:46:39 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: NAT for dialups? Priority: normal References: <19970913141335.54864@hydrogen.nike.efn.org> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On 14 Sep 97 at 0:09, Russ Panula wrote: > 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. Someone already mentioned gamers might be a problem. They're a minority, but an extremely vocal one. If I can't figure out a way to work around that problem that alone would probably kill the idea. :( I knew there had to be a reason everybody wasn't doing something so simple. I still plan to setup a test and see how it goes. Thanks, Logan Ashby http://www.texramp.net lashby@texramp.net sysadmin@texramp.net =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=