Ted, > Theodore Ts'o wrote: > So 30 static IP addresses, with a slower service, is over > *five* times more expensive, and over twice as expensive > as faster service with only 2 static IP addresses. > As much as I hate NAT, from an aesthetic perspective, > using two static IP addresses and a NAT box was the > expedient solution. We could I suppose blame the ISP's > for their charging policies, but these economic pressures > are going to drive people in certain directions, and as > Ekr as pointed out, saying that people are either > misinformed or non-rationale isn't going to help matters.
In other words, for your setup the inconveniences of NAT are not worth spending $100/mo more. Same here. > (Put another way, sure, Voice over IP would be nice. But > if I have to pay 2x or 5x a month to an ISP in order to > not have a NAT box so I can use VoIP, wouldn't it be much > more rational to stick with a wired POTS line?) Not to mention that after 8pm cell phone calls are free. Besides, I do voice over IP with ipip tunnels that cross NAT just fine. > But the reality is that NAT boxes are here to stay, and > we have lost that battle for IPv4. It would be nice not to > lose that battle for IPv6, but I suspect the jury is still > out on that point; and burying our heads in the sand about > why people chose NAT's is not going to help us assure a > NAT-free world for IPv6. Ditto. Michel.
