Network Address Translation, or NAT is a method of IP mangling in order for many nodes to share IP services through a common IP address. In simple networks where HTTP, POP3, SMTP, and NNTP are the only protocols in use NAT is perfect. It provides translucent access to the internet, at low cost, while providing a firewall shearly due to the paradigm that underlies NAT. But, as is in any firewall, that protection is a hindrance to the use of advanced protocols and the providing of Internet services, (Like HTTP) So the question must be asked, is the price advantage and the inherent firewall worth it, or should each computer on the network be given an IP? Well, in the case of the company I work for, (which uses IP Masquerading, which is basically NAT for Linux...) NAT is perfect, they rarely use anything but FTP, SMTP, HTTP, and POP3. I'm the only one who would even DREAM of using anything else, but I'm not there very often... So NAT if the protocol for them. On the other hand... My home computer is running a web server and regularly uses advanced protocols, so I am forever being plagued by the darn firewall. But I can't decide if it's worth it to spend the extra $15 a month my ISP charges for 8 IPs, (5 useable... 1 network address, 1 broadcast address, and an address for the router) or just to static map what I can and fight with the rest. Any suggestions? Thanks...