Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Keith Moore
had to walk into mine and say:
>
> granted there are numerous instances of this. but it seems disingenuous
> to blame the NAT problem on users when the NAT vendors are doing their
> best to mislead users about the harm that NAT does.
I think you missed the important point. It's not the NAT vendors, it's
the ISPs.
I have 6 computers at home. I'd be perfectly happy to have a /28 or so
of address space routed for me by my ISP, but I would have to upgrade
from the residential $40/month connection to the business $500/month to
do so. I'll think I'll buy a $130 Linksys box and pocket the savings,
thank you very much.
I understand the limitations of NAT environments, having built two
commercial ALG firewalls and maintained several linux based ones for my
friends. I just don't really have any choice. My ISP doesn't offer IPv6
(and won't for the foreseeable future). I do have an IPv6 tunnel from a
tunnelbroker, and I do run 6to4, but that doesn't connect me to very
much.
(All $ are Canadian. :-)
--
Harald Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"It takes a child to raze a village."
-Michael T. Fry
