Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > I am not completely convinced about the above. > > 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.
Sure. Their ISP told them it was hard to get space, and/or someone told them lies about NAT being a security feature. No mystery. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
