Decius wrote:
] ] Now, this would leave you wondering, why on earth does
] ] anyone use this restrictive technology? The usual,
] ] superficial -- and incorrect -- answer is that it
] ] alleviates a shortage of public IP addresses caused by
] ] the original 32-bit address space conceived in an era
] ] before the Internet exploded in popularity. This has been
] ] repeatedly shown as bunkum.
]
]
] The IETF anti-nat crowd has always struck me as odd. If you
] had IP6 you'd have real IPs in your internal network, which
] would mean that you won't have to think in order to manage IP
] allocation in a VPN. Thats nice. No one is going to replace
] the internet for it though. You're still going to have a
] firewall. People don't WANT end to end connectivity. Not even
] at home. It means you've got to lock down the security of
] every computer you own.

Good and effective NAT is the very reason why IPV6 may take 20 or more years to be widely adopted despite the relative scarcity of IPV4 prefixes. I hear talk that M$ is pusing hard for IPV6 adoption in subsequent OSes. Hey Bill, I'll keep my Mac and *nix, Thank You.

RE: Why NAT Isn't As Bad As You Thought