> On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 02:31:08PM -0400, James Sharp wrote:
> > I don't have the IP space to burn.  A /28 at home, 16 addresses, 14
> > usable, 13 machines running.  Adding a FDDI/ethernet router would burn 6
> > of those addresses for network, broadcast, and router interface addresses.
>
> Is there some reason that NAT won't fix this problem?

Yes.  Kerberos doesn't play well with NAT.  There's ways around it, but
they're ugly and kludgy.  There's also the fact that these machines are
production web/mail/DNS/file/cvs servers that bring in quite a chunk of
change every month and I don't feel like trying to set up some really
hairy NAT forwarding rules to put them behind NAT.