Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> writes: > > > until recently the only way I could get even one > > > static IP address for my home was through a special deal with a > > > friend of mine who had a small ISP, and the best bandwidth I could > > > get was 128kbps. none of the other local providers would sell me > > > one. > > > > Doesn't the fact that there's not enough demand for this product > > to make it available suggest anything to you? > > does the fact that there was enough demand for the product that it > eventually became available suggest anything to you? Yeah, that there's a subset who cares. They got it. The market is working. Why are you complaining? > > > so if you can't come up with a rational explanation for something, > > > just pretend that the market is wise and cite it as an unimpeachable > > > authority. > > > > I do have a rational explanation: the customers don't actually care > > at all about your fundamentalist commitment to end-to-end > > connectivity. > > true, customers don't care about e2e. they do, however, care about > running apps that won't work when e2e is broken. Apparently not, or they wold switch. > > So, on the one hand, we have the actual behavior of millions of > > people. > > no, we have your biased interpretation of that behavior, as observed > from a great distance, through a dirty lens. Huh? Are you claiming that people don't (1) Buy NATs (2) Use them? Of course they do. I'm not sure why you're accusing me of bias, Keith. Frankly, I hate NAT. It makes my life as a protocol designer miserable and I don't use it myself. I just don't fool myself that my preferences represent those of people at large. -Ekr -- [Eric Rescorla ekr@rtfm.com] http://www.rtfm.com/