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/