Trying to learn something but not sure what to Google...

[jarod-ajLrJawYSntWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org (Jarod Wilson)]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Edward Ned Harvey <blu-Z8efaSeK1ezqlBn2x/YWAg at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> From: discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org [mailto:discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org] On
>> Behalf Of Jarod Wilson
>>
>> ^ Note that there is no specific mention of NAT here. ^
>> etc.
>
> Apparently we're just arguing about semantics here. ?Because we both agreed
> on the actual points.

Mostly, yes.

> The actual points were: ?With just a router, you cannot take inbound
> requests on some IP address port 80, and then direct the traffic to
> different internal servers based on which page was requested. ?There must be
> a web server or something that understands http, which is the NAT target,
> which could then either proxy or redirect the traffic to multiple internal
> servers.

Here's why its mostly. You appear to still be insisting that you
*must* NAT. I'm insisting that with a capable enough router platform,
no NAT is required at all, you do the proxying on the router. :)

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod-ajLrJawYSntWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org