josmon at rigozsaurus.com
Fri May 13 02:29:21 EDT 2005
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:10:27PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > the NAT-capable boxes at my house have NAT turned off. the
> > NAT-mandatory boxes I have purchased (and no doubt recorded
> > as units sold) have been relegated to the e-waste bin....
> I have to second Bill on this. I have 7 devices in my house capable of
> doing NAT and probably counted as units sold. NONE of them are actually
> doing any NAT. There is NO NAT in my house.
> Sales of NAT capable units are a very poor way to measure NAT deployment.
When it comes to NAT, I'm willing to bet that the average ppml
subscriber is less likely to NAT than the public at large, so
any response is (at best) skewed.
With that said, I have to throw in with Bill and Owen and admit to no
NAT in my house.
What I find interesting, is that I've been telling people that use
NAT that they aren't actually on the Internet -- but rather proxied
to it. In the last six months or so several folks have indicated that
they actually understood that statement.
Is it possible that people are finally starting to see that NAT breaks
end-to-end connectivity? (Or am I just hanging out with a better/worse crowd?)
More information about the ARIN-PPML