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.