--On Wednesday, 05 April, 2006 08:09 -0700 Michel Py
<michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Michel Py wrote:
>>> Unfortunately some protocol purity zealots still have to
>>> realize that Linksys, Netgear, Belkin and consorts don't
>>> sell NAT boxes because they think NAT is good, they sell
>>> NAT boxes because consumers want to buy them.
>
>> Lars-Erik Jonsson wrote:
>> I do not think consumers in general want to buy NAT boxes, but
>> they are forced to do so by ISP's who do not give them a
>> choice.
>
> Your argument does not hold water. Do a survey of customers
> who have the "advanced" or "pro" package (with higher speed
> and multiple static IP addresses) and you will find that the
> very vast majority of them (if not all) use NAT anyway even
> though they have enough public addresses.
It is worth noting in this context that many of the Router
products that are sold for SOHO use (including the high-end
products from the first two vendors listed above) do not provide
any support for multiple static addresses except via one-to-one
NAT. It is simply not possible to configure those devices to
support use of static public addresses for hosts on the LAN
side. This situation would somewhat contaminate the results of
the survey you suggest above.
These are not ISP-imposed limitations, but limitations imposed
by commercially-available products.
It also suggests, again, that part of the current drive by
vendors to support NAT is not because of address shortages but
by support and configuration difficulties with providing and
using small pools of provider-dependent static addresses.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf