Melinda Shore wrote:
The problems we're seeing from NATs - and they're considerable
It depends of the situation; don't generalize, the reality of numbers is
against you. The number of sites where NAT works just fine is orders of
magnitude greater than the number of sites where it causes more than
How can you say "the number of sites where NAT works just fine"?
Have you operated such sites with and without NAT and compared
the result by asking all the users?
Or, does it just mean that network operators they operate their
network just fine?
We're the IETF; we don't design the Internet for
the select few that have issues with NAT, we design it for everyone.
Design what? IP network beyond NAT is not part of the Internet.
I have the greatest respect to Economics Nobel prize winners but I have
never met one that has half of a clue on what it takes to operate an
enterprise network on a daily basis. There is a difference between "the
market" and "what the market would/could be if this or that". How many
of these Nobel prizes understand the relationship between NAT and
renumbering (opposed to the obvious and moot "save IP addresses" and
The only thing economists should observe is that ISP service
with a lot of IP addresses is charged a lot more than that
with a single IP address.
The difference reflects the real world evaluation on the cost