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?