On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 12:15 -0600, Mark Katerberg wrote: > On 02/14/2011 12:11 PM, Justin Krejci wrote: > > How is NAT ever beautiful for anyone? I don't claim there is no place > > for NAT but it is not beautiful and let's not confuse NAT with security. > > Turn off NAT and your stateful deny-default policy firewall still blocks > > all the same packets just as well. > > > > Security Now just had an episode discussing how NAT prevented companies > from charging on a per-computer basis for users' internet access. This > seems pretty good to me. I'd hate to have to pay for a separate > connection for every one of my computers because each would require a > new IP address. Routers made it an impossible problem for the ISPs. > I don't know if circumventing or quietly violating a company's EULA/AUP with NAT is a good argument on why NAT is good. Without knowing the details of the case referenced (a quick search on what Security Now turned up a GRC archives page and I did not find "NAT" anywhere in the shows list) I can only make conjecture. I would hate to have to pay for each computer I connect to my ISP and if a company did that I would find another who didn't. Vote with my feet. Can you cite the show specifically or point out any relevant links or sources to the case you reference?