-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 08/02/2013 08:28 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Aug 1, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
ISP business model.
So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs wanted to
kill NAT, and I have other people telling me NAT was an intergral part of
ISPs' master plan to take over the universe.
Clearly you all both can't be right.
ISPs were against NATs at first. It was only later that they embraced
them.
This mess is still the ISP fault. If they gave users what they wanted, which
is multiple IP addresses, then they wouldn't have to install NAT (I am still
paying $9.95 per month for the privilege of having 4 additional IPv4 addresses
on my Comcast connection). And that would have accelerated IPv6 deployment.
The firewall issue is orthogonal (which I put the blame on Microsoft sloppy
coding practices).
- --
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc(_at_)petit-huguenin(_dot_)org
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)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=s1v7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----