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 <chk(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>
"It takes a child to raze a village."
-Michael T. Fry