From smd@clock.org Thu Sep 11 13:13 PDT 1997 "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us> writes:

...

Perhaps I misunderstood Sanjay, Sean, but I believe his concern was that the addresses _not be the property of an upstream (ie: backbone) provider_ to provide flexibility of connection choice.

Welcome to the new Internet, which is being built.

Two of the fundamental concepts that are important:

-- IP addresses are not forever -- IP addresses are not end-to-end

Jay paraphrased my concerns correctly. NAT does not give any incentives to an independently addressed provider (that does not own global physical infrastructure) to switch to using "multiple outward-facing addresses [from upstream providers' address space]". Hey, if I were a dreamer, I wouldn't count on those clueless, bandwidth stealing, soon-to-be squashed or consolidated, small providers, to help me bring through my vision ;-) No disrespect meant. I do enjoy reading and learning from the long, well written articles of the experienced folks out there. However, a small provider (one that believes they engineer better Internet throughput for clients' web servers than some of the big boys), would rather watch the bottomline. Sanjay.