Many of the people who have deployed NATs are responding directly to the
address scarcity (and resultant cost). If you consider that many ISPs now
have different pricing models for multiple IP addresses than they do for a
single (regardless of bandwidth used), it isn't surprising. I also think
that it's interesting to consider that security concerns are the other
primary reason for use of NAT.
ssh
Keith Moore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Fleischman, Eric W"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
.edu> cc: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Brian E
Carpenter'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Manning
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Loshin
11/29/1999 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11:08 AM Subject: Re: IP network address
assignments/allocations
information?
> 1) If we effectively ran out of addresses when RFC 1597 was published,
> has running out of addresses hurt us in any way?
absolutely. partially as a result of (perceived or actual) address
scarcity,
people have deployed NATs everywhere, and this has had an large adverse
effect on the Internet's ability to support certain types of applications -
particularly distributed applications (multi-party conferencing, games,
simulations, distributed computations) and applications where the "user"
end needs to be able to accept incoming traffic which is initiated
from "outside". NATs also impair the reliability of the network because
they can discard address mappings for connections that are still being
used by applications.
Keith