Eric Rescorla wrote:
(2) NAT solves at least some of those problems, at some
cost (say Cn), both financial and operational and
that solution has benefit Bn.
(5) It's also possible that at some time in the future
Cn will exceed Bn, in which case I would expect people
to stop using NAT and (probably) demand something else.
I think this is the point of contention: Keith asserts that Cn exceeds
Bn if you consider long-term costs; your invocation of revealed
preferences is based on the market, which tends to be short-term. Cn<Bn
if all you run is client-server apps; but NAT locks you in to using just
those apps, which means that Cn has a hidden component that isn't
visible to most consumers.
--
/=============================================================\
|John Stracke |jstracke(_at_)centive(_dot_)com |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own. |
|=============================================================|
|Beware of wizards, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.|
\=============================================================/