> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> the solution is pretty simple: give out IP addresses for free, instead
> of charging an arm and a leg for anything other than a single address.
> As long as ISPs won't provide multiple addresses, or won't provide
> them except at unreasonably high prices, NAT will remain.
I think there were other very powerful reasons why NAT was (and remains) so
popular - to the point where IMO even if ISP's had handed out multiple IP
addresses, we'd have seen widespread NAT deployment anyway. (Yes, there's no
way to prove that.)
One very powerful one, not mentioned at all in the discussion here, is the
renumbering issue - i.e. having to change host addresses when you switch
ISP's. (And let's *not* get into why this has to happen - asking to take
your IP "address" with you is like asking to take your street address with
you when you move so you won't have to re-print your letterhead...)
And there's also firewalls - NAT boxes do provide some protection from
random probing. (And I'm rather amused to see that now that the low-hanging
security protection fruit of email inclusions and firewalls have been
plucked, we're seeing a lot more web viruses - a likely development I ranted
about some years ago... but I digress.)
In general, all of these (including extra addresses) have the attribute that
"you plug this box in at the edge of the network, and don't have to change
anything else". *That* is what really sold NAT.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf