> > > 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. the market is dysfunctional. it doesn't always fail to deliver what is needed, but it often does. > > 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. they would switch if they had alternatives available. but people like you keep claiming that alternatives aren't needed because the market has spoken. > > > 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? nope. I'm claiming that your explanation of why they don't do something else is unsupportable. > 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. nor do I fool myself about such things. but I'm capable of seeing how much NAT impairs the ability of the Internet to support apps, and some of those apps seem attractive enough that I believe people would eagerly adopt them - if NATs weren't preventing them from achieving critical mass. Keith