> > apologies for the possible silly question (i don't think it is, but),
> > but is Eircom's aDSL service NAT'ed?
>No - you get unfiltered access with a real (but dynamic) IP address.
> > and what implications would that have for VoIP? I know there are
> > difficulties with VoIP or connecting to clients connected to a NAT'ed
> > network from the internet wild (i.e. machines with static, real IPs)
>You will probably suffer from the high latency of DLS lines.  Typically,
>you're talking about 50ms RTT to the local bas, which is pretty high.
>If your voip application can handle this, then you're ok.
what's the deal with all this latency? it's not like that in other places
where I've used dsl. i read some story about it being done that way to
allow greater distances to be covered or something like that. however, my
knowledge of physics is really only newtonian, and I don't understand how
worsening latency could possibly improve the reliability of a 2000 foot
long piece of copper. Perhaps it has something to do with stretching the
time-space continuum? can someone explain this in words of five syllables

from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE1947C6D
	for <zzzz@localhost>; Fri, 23 Aug 2002 06:06:54 -0400 (EDT)
from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for zzzz@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:06:54 +0100 (IST)
from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7N16TZ03375 for <zzzz@spamassassin.taint.org>;
    Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:06:30 +0100
from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id D6F482940E1; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
from argote.ch (argote.ch [80.65.224.17]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id DE0D3294099 for <fork@xent.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:03:05
    -0700 (PDT)
by argote.ch (Postfix, from userid 500) id D63AEC44E;
    Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:57:05 +0200 (CEST)
From fork-admin@xent.com  Fri Aug 23 11:08:50 2002