--- Sean Doran <smd(_at_)EBONE(_dot_)NET> wrote:
Keith Moore writes:
| but I'm fairly convinced that we are *far* better off with a global
| name space for network attachment points, which are exposed and
| visible to hosts and applications, than we are with only locally
| scoped addresses visible to hosts and applications
Out of curiosity, do you (as a hosts and applications person)
really care what is in use in the network(s) between
the network attachment points in question, if the edges
of the network all have the properties in your lines above?
Sean.
You know, concerns over global name spaces and architectural purity are
valid to the engineer/operator. But to Joe User who just got his first
cable modem and got rid of AOL, he just wants to connect his computer
to the Internet. Then he wants to share that connection with his kids'
computer and their $50 e-bay printer server.
That's why so many of the little NAT gadgets are sold. Because Joe User
doesn't want to shell out extra bucks for more IP addresses and Joe
User needs simplicity.
Also _most_ average users just want to browse the web, get their email,
download software, and maybe exchange music files.
It is up to the networking professionals to make sure Big Company X and
Big Company Y connect when and where they have to. But its up to Joe
User to manage his home network.
Lets try to at least make that simple for Mr. and Mrs. Joe User.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/