On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 04:59:15 +0859 (), Masataka Ohta
<mohta(_at_)NECOM830(_dot_)HPCL(_dot_)TITECH(_dot_)AC(_dot_)JP> said:
>> The Internet end-to-end model will once again prevail, putting the
>> cellular service providers back into their proper place as providers
>> of packet pipes, nothing more. And life will be good again. :-)
Masataka> IP over NAT is, in no way, end-to-end.
Point taken.
NAT is not end-to-end.
End-to-end is good karma.
Masataka> WAP and IP over NAT are equally bad.
We have two sets of problems and layering helps here.
At layer 3, we need to make things end-to-end.
At layer 7, the WAP approach is simply the wrong approach.
We need competition in the efficient appliction protocols
space.
As you pointed out more than a month ago:
Masataka> To make the competition fair, the important questions are:
Masataka> Is it fair if providers using iMODE or WAP are advertised
Masataka> to be ISPs?
Masataka> Is it fair if providers using NAT are advertised to be ISPs?
Masataka> My answer to both questions is
Masataka> No, while they may be Internet Service Access Providers and
Masataka> NAT users may be IP Service Providers, they don't provide
Masataka> Internet service and are no ISPs.
Which in my thinking is equivalent of saying that WAP is at best an
Internet gateway model. Which is consistent to my position in The WAP
Trap paper ...