> And yes, additional IP addresses were going to cost dramatically more. NAT
> was a simple case of economics... but on the other hand, I don't experience
> any "lack" because of it. I don't play UDP-based games or employ any of the
> other relatively new protocols that are so sensitive to end-to-end-ness
> (should they be? was that a valid assumption?), so a NAT is a great solution
> for me.
understood. and you may never miss any of those distributed applications
or applications that want your end to be the "server" for the very reason
that NAT prevents them from having enough market share to be successful.
i.e. just because you don't know what you're missing doesn't mean that NAT
hasn't done you harm.
> NAT would be bad if an ISP were using it to artificially expand its address
> space; the use of NAT at the "small-time" end user's site seems quite
> practical and beneficial, especially in a world where ISPs are going to hold
> up non-naive users for ransom. Cheers -- Ian
if you think of NAT as a short-term strategy and are fully aware of its
limitations, it probably won't cause you much harm as an individual.
then again, there are dozens of products out there claiming to offer
something like "internet connection sharing" without bothering to mention
the limitations of that approach...which seems like misleading advertising
at best.
Keith
