Re: NATs *ARE* evil!

2000-12-17 Thread Bradley Dunn
At 02:28 AM 12/17/2000 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote: >To put it another way, let's imagine an alternate reality in which IPv4 had >48-bit addresses - enough so pretty much everyone could get as many as they >wanted, and nobody used NAT boxes because they couldn't get enough addresses. >Now, think

Re: NATs *ARE* evil!

2000-12-17 Thread Bradley Dunn
At 12:37 PM 12/17/2000 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote: >It's hard to put numbers on it without knowing what %-age of sites which are >already globally advertised has more that one prefix, and how fast that >number is growing. However, looking at the routing table growth (it has >doubled in about 3 y