> > of course. but you can perhaps understand why I don't consider your > > > > intiution to the contrary convincing either? > > Yes, but I'm not the one calling widely sold and deployed network > devices "Denial of service attacks". Just for comparison against Phil's use of the term. It's not how I normally describe them (though I'm not exactly glowing in my praise...) > I don't know enough about how you're doing your distributing computing > to have an opinion, but as for the other two... In my experience, > IT managers are pretty unhappy punching holes in their firewalls > for incoming SIP and IPsec, whether they run NAT or not. In my experience, IT managers are generally pretty unhappy changing anything to support their users. People who actually use the computers or the network are regarded as a nuisance. > The bottom line here is what economists call "revealed preference". Maybe "revealed ignorance" would be a better term. Though I prefer "unintended consequence". Keith