"Anthony" == Anthony Atkielski <anthony(_at_)atkielski(_dot_)com> writes:
Anthony> That's exactly why you only need one telephone per family.
Anthony> These are people who don't need to be individually reachable.
Families are going toward a telephone per person with caller id and/or
distinctive ring to figure out who should answer. That sure sounds like NAT
to me!
They would take a phone number per person, but someone there aren't enough
phone numbers available cheaply enough or a mechanism to communicate them to
the end-node to make this work.
Mobile phone companies are offering cell phones for each member of the
family with calling plans.
My wife and I possess a total of 5 telephone numbers (counting mobile and
pagers) because the phone company does not offer the equivalent of mobileIP.
Plus her work number, at which I can't reach her after the receptionist has
gone home, and her mobile phone is non-functional due to building issues, but
that's okay since her patient's pace-makers prefer it that way.
Anthony> That's also exactly why you only need one telephone per
Anthony> business. These are employees who don't need to be individually
Anthony> reachable. The receptionist can have one telephone, and he or
Anthony> she can just physically bring any other employee who needs to be
Anthony> contacted to the phone in the reception area.
That works for some businesses perhaps. It fails in most white collar work.
Ever try to get ahold of someone *AFTER THE RECEPTIONIST HAS GONE HOME*?
] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ottawa(_dot_)on(_dot_)ca
http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [