g'day,
Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > But what do U say about people using it at home ....SOHO
>
> if people understand that NATs allow them to run web and mail
> clients from multiple machines but prevent them from running
> most other apps, then I don't have any problem with it.
And if your objection to NATs ended there, I wouldn't have a problem
with it. But instead of then working to change the protocols that break
with NATs, you continue to insist, Canute-like, that you can turn back
the tides and move the world back to a pre-NAT world. This is probably
even more irritating to me than your continual use of "ITEF" without the
article.
Who was the Roman Senator who ended every speech with "Carthage must be
destroyed"? You might take solace from the fact that eventually Carthage
was destroyed, but the power struggles and cost of that conflict hurt
Rome hugely in the process. Better to light a candle than to curse the
darkness, and all...
> again, the problem isn't that NATs exist, but that people
> are misled about the harm that they do - to the point that
> if an application won't work over NAT, folks blame the application.
I might ask why you aren't more actively seeking ways to accomodate
things, rather than hoping that you're going to turn back the NAT tide
this late in the day. The water's gone beyond your ankles and is lapping
your ears on this one. It's time to accept that you lost a technical
argument and move on...
- peterd
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Deutsch peterd@gydig.com
Gydig Software
"This, my friend, is a pint."
"It comes in pints?!? I'm getting one!!"
- Lord of the Rings
----------------------------------------------------------------------