> > Such 1-for-1 address rewriting does not provide the topology > > hiding that many people seem to like of their existing NAPT > > devices, nor does such 1-for-1 address rewriting obscure the > > number of hosts behind the NAT. Such obscuring can be useful > > for certain businesses (there are, today, small ISPs in certain > > countries that do not want their country's PTT to know the > > ISP's actual market share, for fear tarrifs or advertising to > > compete with the small ISP will be increased). > > So how far, exactly, are you prepared to bend over backwards > and crack > the spine of the IP architecture to accommodate 0.01% or so of its > users? Not to mention the cost increases for all the extra protocol > layers and debugging that must be borne by the other 99.99%? I am not willing to bend over backwards or even sideways for such numbers. -d _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf