Karl Denninger wrote :
-> > I will restart my question as such:
-> >
-> > It is my understanding that;
-> >
-> > One of your principal objections to NAT boxes is that they are
-> > motivated by technical and trade practices you find dishonest.
-> >
-> > Please define and expound.
->
-> My principal objection to NAT is that it breaks lots of things, including
-> some servers, that customers want to put on their networks.
->
-> At the PROVIDER level, especially at the level we run at, there is no NAT
-> box made fast enough to do the job regardless of price.
->
Not true. I doubt that your links comprise much more than 100Mb or so
(which the existing PIX does OK) and you could certainly make
something like a fast PC perform NAT at *lots* of pps or Kbps.
The only thing with NAT is that you need some memory, but again, the
PIX has a limit of ~16,000 *simultaneous* conversations and doesn't
have much RAM to play with.
-> > Do you really think that big ISP puts in /19 filters to make life
-> > hard for the "little guy" at the bottom of the "money pile"?
-> >
-> > -alan
->
-> As long as a provider can get their own /19 I have no problem with
-> prefix filtering at the /19 level.
->
-> The problem comes about when big ISPs filter at /19s *AND* the allocators
-> of space refuse to give ISPs /19s.
->
I've had a wonderful time...
...but this wasn't it.