Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP

[Joe Touch]

stanislav shalunov wrote:

> NAT is an ugly hack that's impairing people's connectivity, right?
> For some, it might be.  Others find different faults with NAT.
> A highly unusual for an IETFer (and very disturbing) perspective of
> cable companies is provided in an article in CED magazine "The CAT and
> the NAT" by Leslie Ellis, Technology Analyst:
> 
> http://www.cedmagazine.com/ced/2001/1101/11d.htm
> 
> (Link appeared on Slashdot.)
> 
> This article proceeds to describe NATs as incarnations of everything
> evil.  One of the reasons they are so evil, according to Leslie Ellis,
> is that they allow users to avoid paying for extra IP numbers:


Interesting spin, esp. given the promotion of NATs _BY_ the cable cos 
and ISPs specifically to prohibit users from running web servers out of 
their home.

Live by the (rusty) sword, die by it, apparently.

Joe