Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu writes:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:19:12 PDT, Eric Rescorla said:
>
> > You've got it absolutely backwards. The fact that the NAT breaks applications
> > that I don't want to run anyway is a FEATURE, not a bug.
>
> And the fact that NAT breaks things that you DO want to run is a <?>
I'm not convinced that this is happening... if it is,
why isn't there a market reaction.
> > > And unfortunately, a lot of the Just Does Not Work stuff are applications
> > > like H.323 and VOIP that Joe Sixpack actually *might* be interested in.
> >
> > Ah, the eternal lament of the technocrat who can't understand why the
> > customers don't want what he knows is so obviously good for them.
>
> No, the lament of a technocrat who can't deploy things that customers DO want
> because NAT breaks them.
>
> Find a user. See if they'd be interested in video or voice over IP. Watch
> them say "ooh... that sounds cool". Then tell them it would be unreliable
> and you could only use it to talk to other users some of the time, because
> a lot of users are on these things called NATs, and watch enthusiasm wane.
Given that there are workarounds for these, I find this explanation
pretty unlikely. More likely is that people's revealed preference
is that they don't actually want this stuff.
-Ekr
--
[Eric Rescorla ekr@rtfm.com]
http://www.rtfm.com/