Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu writes:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:19:12 PDT, Eric Rescorla said:
You've got it absolutely backwards. The fact that the NAT breaks
applications
that I don't want to run anyway is a FEATURE, not a bug.
And the fact that NAT breaks things that you DO want to run is a <?>
I'm not convinced that this is happening... if it is,
why isn't there a market reaction.
And unfortunately, a lot of the Just Does Not Work stuff are applications
like H.323 and VOIP that Joe Sixpack actually *might* be interested in.
Ah, the eternal lament of the technocrat who can't understand why the
customers don't want what he knows is so obviously good for them.
No, the lament of a technocrat who can't deploy things that customers DO want
because NAT breaks them.
Find a user. See if they'd be interested in video or voice over IP. Watch
them say "ooh... that sounds cool". Then tell them it would be unreliable
and you could only use it to talk to other users some of the time, because
a lot of users are on these things called NATs, and watch enthusiasm wane.
Given that there are workarounds for these, I find this explanation
pretty unlikely. More likely is that people's revealed preference
is that they don't actually want this stuff.
-Ekr
--
[Eric Rescorla ekr(_at_)rtfm(_dot_)com]
http://www.rtfm.com/