Timothy Murphy wrote: > As a matter of interest, is it possible > to run a home network _without_ NAT? Yes ... A home network doesn't have to be routed at all (it can be completely isolated from the Internet or anything else). Many home Internet users (those that don't want games / peer-to-peer support) don't actually need anything more than Web access, anonymous FTP download access, and e-mail. This can be provided by a server with a Web proxy, SMTP/POP3/IMAP server, and two network connections (say Ethernet and modem). It doesn't actually have to be a router: no TCP/IP connections are made *across* the server. I've seen a number of companies supported this way, and my current place of employment has most PCs set up without a default gateway and no rights to send anything in any directions through the firewall. There's no business reason to give the PCs anything extra. On the other hand, if you can persuade the appropriate IP issuing authorities (RIPE: http://www.ripe.net for you and me, though you'd go through an ISP to talk to them) that you have a need for more than one public IP, it's fairly easy to get a /29 or /28 routeable network, with five or thirteen usable IP addresses. If you can get this, then you can just set up your home network with every computer having a public IP address. Expect to pay business-class ISP rates for this. In my experience, companies can get these networks with few more questions asked than "do you need them?" and "for what purposes are you going to use the IP addresses?" On the fourth hand, you can run your network on IPv6. I understand you'll get a network by default: there'll be a bit of NATting when you go between the IPv6 world and the IPv4 world, but otherwise, there's no need for NAT. Hope this helps, James. -- E-mail address: james | "Bill Gates' School Report": @westexe.demon.co.uk | Every time you ask him to do something, he breaks down, | starts again, freezes, and then starts again. | -- "I'm Sorry, I Haven't A Clue", BBC Radio 4
