Mark Smith wrote:
Not only may the next "killer app" not be the next "killer app" because it
doesn't work with NAT, the next "killer app" may have already been invented a
year ago, but wasn't able to be deployed because of the prevalance of NAT. Not
only don't we know, we also don't know what we may be missing.
The next "killer app" a lot more important than Web for most
business people is the "Internet telephony", which may or may
not use IETF standard protocol.
Even though there are people who can not type, most of them
can use telephony (maybe over TDD).
And the second next "killer app" a lot more important than
Web for most people including, but not limited to, business
ones is "Internet TV", which may or may not use IETF or
Microsoft standard protocol.
It has already happened to millions of people in Japan initiated
by a commercial company and there will be tens and hundreds of
millions of people using them.
This is the problem with NAT - it appears to be a nice easy solution, until
you realise that the devil is in the details.
Yup. If you insist on NAT, you lose a lot of business chances.
I can proudly say that I helped the commercial company above get
global IPv4 addresses enough for millions of subscribers, which
was essential for their aggressive service.
The reality of life is that there are successful ISPs and there
are poor network providers insisting on NAT.
Ietf mailing list