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.