Since the issue is stable end-points, could something like this be a patch for v4 NATs? a) Applications running behind NAT are constrained to have only 8-bit effective port numbers. Means no more than 256 ports. b) If there are no more than 256 devices hiding behind NAT, NAT could allocate a stable 8-bit per-device number for each device. c) Externally visible port number used by an application on some device is composed of its stable 8-bit number known to NAT, plus 8-bit port number it locally allocates. Device & app config is more complex. And the idea of "well known port numbers" for certain protocols goes for a toss. But at least the apps work. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf@ietf.org [mailto:owner-ietf@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Keith Moore Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 10:52 PM To: EKR Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu; dts@senie.com; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6) > > 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? > > 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. > 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. Keith