There must be something similar to Godwin's Law whereby any IETF discussion can
devolve into a debate over NAT. ;-)
Jason
On 7/12/13 10:13 AM, "Phillip Hallam-Baker"
<hallam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com<mailto:hallam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>> wrote:
Keith, read my words, I choose them more carefully than you imagine.
solves their problems at negligible cost TO THEM
What part of that do you disagree with? I don't dispute the fact that NAT is a
suboptimal solution if we look at the system as a whole. But the reason I
deployed NAT in my house was that Roadrunner wanted $10 extra per month for
every device I connected to a maximum of 4. I have over 200 IP enabled devices
in my house.