On 20-jun-04, at 23:23, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
"But it's substandard service nonetheless."
We can certainly have an argument about what is a reasonable price,
I can do *exactly* the same things (read/send e-mail, browse the web,
transfer files, make connections to remote hosts via SSH, listen to BBC
Radio 4, etc.) as I can from inside the corporate network, then what
exactly makes this NAT service "substandard"??
I'm not sure what you can and cannot do on your corporate network, but
for me NAT gets in the way of some forms of streaming video (RTSP
protocol), audio/video conferencing (SIP) and IPsec.
It's a real shame that software companies are spending their money on
getting around this rather than create real innovation.
I am not advocating the use of NATs, I am just observing that NATs are
fact of life and I have a hard time accepting that such a service
be defined as "Internet service".
You can define it as "partially broken internet service".
I don't think the IETF should be in the business of defining what
constitues Internet service based on religion rather than reality.
And I don't think the IETF should do anything that even comes close to
Ietf mailing list