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@pobox.com> "It takes a child to raze a village." -Michael T. Fry