Re: NATs *ARE* evil!

[Angelos D. Keromytis]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "J. Noel Chiappa" writes
:
>
>I mean, once you're behind a NAT box, you've got a *lot* of addresses to play
>with (how many, exactly, depends on how you're doing it). This is puzzling to
>me - what configurations are there out there that demand more address space,
>internally, than you already get with one layer of NAT box? Or is there some
>other reason I haven't figured out to have layers of address space?

Most *DSL providers only give you one or two addresses; some of them are
even NAT'ed, which forces a small company (or something like my home network)
to use a double-NAT.
-Angelos