Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
(1) There are some set of problems that users have or
believe they have.
(2) NAT solves at least some of those problems, at some
cost (say Cn), both financial and operational and
that solution has benefit Bn.
(3) The fact that a large number of people have chosen
to use NAT is a strong argument that B>C. (Here's
where the invocation of revealed preference comes in).
There's ample evidence that many users aren't aware of the costs of
using NAT, or especially, weren't aware of those costs before they
started using NAT - so their choices were poorly informed. So no, it's
not reasonable to conclude that decisions to use NATs are justified by
realistic cost-benefit estimations of doing so.
NATs have been around for quite a while. This might have been
a convincing argument 5 years ago, but I don't find it very
convincing now, particularly in view of the fact that some
people who clearly understand the cost/benefits choose to use them.
Note also that cost optimization by individual users (even if
well-informed) does not necessarily produce a cost-optimized result for
the overall community.
Of course. But then you have to describe the negative externality.
See my response to Melinda for more on this.
-Ekr
--
[Eric Rescorla ekr(_at_)rtfm(_dot_)com]
http://www.rtfm.com/