In message
<200101311904(_dot_)OAA21343(_at_)ginger(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu>, "J.
Noel Chiappa" typed:
Keith, why don't you start an NAT-Haters mailing list, and take all this
disgust with NAT's there? (I'm quite serious about this.)
You seem to be having problems accepting that fact that NAT's are selling
several orders of magnitudes (I'd guess at least 3, but it's probably more)
more units than your preferred alternative. Most people would regard this as
a sign that the world has decided, and move on.
many nats cost nothin - many are check boxes on existing products -
alternatives cost money - some day tho, they may be required like IP
was when we started with x.25:-)
When life gives you lemons, you have to make lemonade. NAT's are a fact of
life, and we will, indeed, have to find some way of incorporating them into
the mainstream architecture of the Internet. This is a subject on which I
have
pondered a lot, for several years - maybe you should wrestle with it too.
when life gives you lemons, pick grapes instead and make wine
or bottle spring water and sell that (with or without added CO2)
its better for your teeth.
cheers
jon