Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 19/04/2010 16:14, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
The eyeball ISPs will find it trivial to NAT should they ever need to do so [...]
Patrick,
Having made this bold claim, have you ever actually tried to run a natted eyeball network? The last two natted eyeball networks I worked with could never figure out which aspect of NAT hurt more: the technical side or the business side.
Nick
I apologize for a lack of clarity, in that what I meant was: "NAT for eyeball ISPs is technically possible and feasible if needed (since IP addresses are centrally managed by one company); NAT for servers (in the sense of dedicated/colocated systems run by different people/companies) is almost technically impossible and not feasible due to customer training needed and the coordination that would be required." I meant "trivial" FSVO "possible" - sorry. --Patrick