No. Scores won't buy it. Let's not forget that one of the reasons behind the considerable success of NAT, despite its huge annoyances, it because NAT does provide some of the PI perks. PA is good for dial-up users and home/soho setups. Bigger, you find NAT, because for many the no-sweat ISP switch is worth more than the NAT-induced problems.I am not completely convinced about the above.
In my experience, the number one reason for going to RFC1918/NAT is an ISP change. The ISP pulls out of a market or tanks, the customer looks at my proposal for renumbering, chokes at the bottom line, and says "make sure we don't have to go through this again next time the ISP bellies up". Welcome to NAT.
It would be really interesting to understand why enterprises decided to do NATs instead of PI space. My guess is that many of the companies that use NAT do it simply because they can not justify the /24. These probably don't qualify as enterprises, but nevertheless there has to be a reason to why some enterprises go for NAT, others for PI space. From my years at a large carrier I can't say there is a pattern. I wonder if it isn't as simple as knowledge. Few know how to actually apply for PI space.
Best regards,
- kurtis -
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
