On Mon Mar 27 22:51:35 2006, Austin Schutz wrote:
Actually, no, the market didn't want a solution to "the addressing
issue", because there was no such issue in the market at the time.
Nor did it vote *for* anything.
NAT is a done deal. It's well supported at network edges. It solves
the addressing issue, which was what the market wanted. It voted
for NAT with
dollars and time. It is the long term solution - not because it is
because it is.
The market voted against the outrageous prices charged by ISPs for
"networked" access accounts, and they started voting about ten years
ago. I'm far from convinced this was a matter of market scarcity of
IPv4 addresses, even if the problem was well known by then in
technical circles, I'm far from convinced that the market pricing of
those access accounts was based on anything but the few higher level
ISPs of the time charging a fortune.
Now, people have said that none of the NAT vendors automatically
believe NATs are a good thing, but I've not noticed any of them
pointing out their known disadvantages, either. Facts of the matter
are that given a shortcut which avoids cost, lots of people will in
general buy it, and other people will cash in on it.
You see things; and you say "Why?"
But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw
Ietf mailing list