> IP was conceived in such a way that TCP, UDP, and other protocols could be layered on top of it, but because NATs break the encapsulation, with NAT each new p

> IP was conceived in such a way that TCP, UDP, and other protocols could be layered on top of it, but because NATs break the encapsulation, with NAT each new protocol requires every router's NAT to be reprogrammed to know how to handle it. > If IP had been designed with NAT in mind, it might not be so broken now. Perhaps UDP should have been defined with session numbers. Some NAT complexity is due a lack of standard session identifiers. > The internet was meant to be a network where every computer is equal, and in that environment anyone could set up a server and start doing business or providing their own content. No more. Now, thanks to a completely avoidable numbering shortage and a NAT-hell, the internet is getting to be more like television - big company's servers provide the content, and you consume it, just as the media companies and cable companies like it. There's no shortage of network addresses. However, there is a shortage of products that support practical protocol extensions, such as RFC1365. Router and operating system vendors have been keen to push IPv6 compatible products but there's less sales to be made by supporting downwardly compatible extensions. You may be conflating your remaining problem - ISPs firewalling desirable packets for the purpose of creating more profitable grades of service. Admittedly, its no fun being squeezed between large corporate interests but be positive.