everyone--
I know this is a frequent source of heated discussion, and that much has
already been said that doesn't need to be repeated here, but I *just*
*can't* *let* *this* *go* unchallenged.
-----
On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 08:26 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
[...]
in a just world, the NAT vendors would all be sued out of existence
for the harm they've done to the Internet. in the real world, if you
can hire a famous personality to advertise your product on TV,
then by definition it must work well.
[...]
The harm done to the growth potential of the Internet by the widespread
deployment of NAT routers is not the fault of the people who make them.
That there is a profitable business to be made in selling NAT appliances
to non-technical Internet users is *not* the root cause of the problem.
It's a symptom, and I think the IETF would do very well to think long
and hard about how to solve the real problem illustrated by the ubiquity
of NAT routers in residential settings: strategic opposition to the
end-to-end architecture among large retail Internet service providers.
The first thing I would suggest is to sit back and contemplate whether
the situation bears any resemblance to other problems in which the user
population engages in behavior that results in short-term personal
benefit in exchange for long-term harm to the welfare of society.
In fairness, I should disclose that I am currently employed by a company
that sells-- among other fine products-- a home gateway appliance with a
NAT routing function; also, my responsibilities include integrating the
library of ALG implementations it offers. So, yes-- I've been having
this debate with myself for years.
I very much wish there were a profitable business to be made selling
home gateway appliances with IPv6 and 6to4 support, but I also very much
wish that Afghan farmers could make a living growing wheat instead of
opium. Sadly-- there is not much business to be made that way today,
and whether there will be a thriving business there in the near future
remains a very open question.
--
j h woodyatt <jhw(_at_)wetware(_dot_)com>