I understand that there are pressures to do multihoming, but I just don't see
how NAT (i.e. address sharing) is having much effect one way or the other on
the intensity of the pressure to do multi-homing.
NATs allow users to be irresponsible about the addressing since they
dont require you to multihome hosts, but dynamically pick which way to
enter and leave your domain - this means people can be stupid and run
multihomed. for example.
incentives are important wen resources are scarce y'know:-)
anyhow, i think the old 8+8 v6 scheme would have sorted this out just
dandily....and i dont understand the vitriol people our on it -
antyhing else (liek yo usuggest coordinaging the addresses allocated
to NATs on the outside so they aggregate ) is the SAME thing. involves
the same requirements for a protocol to coordinate it....
nats for securtyy thru obscrurity are about as relavent to real
security failures and risk and loss of face and revenue as postits on
your keyboard saying do not touch...the most common failure we get is
via applicatio nlevel messes (e.g. mail attachements) and user
education is the only way to solve those.
but of course, with pip....