🚀 go-pugleaf

>> Then something occurred to me. Wouldn't it help dramatically if ISPs 
>> delegated static IP addresses for any kind of permanent connectivity?
>> This way, customers' addresses would stay constant and make them
>> easier to track down:
> 
> Actually, if ISP's required users to install a router with NAT it
> would eliminate most of it. The hacks and worms could not infect new
> machines protected by NAT.

This is part of the great irony of ISPs not knowing what's really 
financially beneficial to them:

Static IPs cost little extra to set up, but help the Internet more easily 
self-regulate and block malicious traffic without having to resort to 
blocking the whole ISP. When large netblocks in the ISP are blacklisted 
globally, the ISP loses * way more business * due to customers going 
elsewhere.

ISPs (especially cable) don't like NAT. In some cases, the practice is 
disallowed in the terms of service or requires an extra fee. Again, 
fantastic irony: encouraging NAT (implied firewall) would result in fewer 
vulnerable customers, hence less malicious traffic, more bandwidth savings, 
and less cost incurred due to handling abuse.

-- 
Jem Berkes
http://www.sysdesign.ca/