NAT (was Re: too many routes)

[Sanjay Dani]

>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.