With all due respect to Owen, I don't share the view that everyone should be jumping into BGP or getting an allocation from ARIN, but that's been a long-standing debate between us. NPT allows you to get prefixes from multiple ISPs without having to get an allocation to coordinate routing; or in the other example, without having to have host systems maintain multiple global prefixes (which quickly becomes a security nightmare for auditing; a troubleshooting nightmare for support, etc). As far as it being costly, I think too much of the mindset on list is the large network or ISP perspective; for the small network that NPT is targeting, all this would happen in some "Dual WAN" multi-function firewall appliance. Modern hardware is often powerful enough to vastly exceed transport capacity for these networks, so the performance "cost" is a non-issue. All these other methods place far too much control on the host system (and its implementation) to be ready for prime time yet; the reality is that without NPT being widely available, we won't see 99% of small businesses using IPv6 for a long time, so if our goal is IPv6 adoption maybe it's time we stop the holy war on anything "NAT". Hammer has echoed legitimate concerns and confusion that represents a very large portion of the user base out there. Maybe we should be asking why that is instead of telling him he doesn't understand anything and that NAT is "evil". -- Ray Soucy Epic Communications Specialist Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526 Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System http://www.networkmaine.net/