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

[bene-Gk2boCrsRs1AfugRpC6u6w at public.gmane.org (Ben Eisenbraun)]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 01:26:07PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> 
> 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. :)

The problem is that we are all stuck using imprecise language to describe
an ever-changing field of technology.

If you want to be more specific (and pedantic), you can say that the
NAT-style solutions offered are all layer 3 solutions (of the OSI network
model, not the IETF one), and the HTTP-proxying solutions offered are all
layer 7 solutions.

Back in the day, a router was a layer 3 device, and a switch was a layer 2
device, but the terminology and technology has blurred quite a bit 
these days.  Layer 3 switches are old-hat now, and routers that do deep
packet inspection (i.e. look at the header fields of encapsulated protocols
to determine how to route the packet at layer 3) are in use more and more.

So, yeah.  I have no point.  Language sucks.

/me shakes his hoary fist...  Boundary violators, all of 'em!

-ben

--
i propose we leave math to the machines and go play outside.
                                                    <calvin>