On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:55:28 -0500 (EST) Dean Anderson <dean@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Keith Moore wrote: > > > >>> The residential users don't need to have a globaly unique > > >IP address.> > > >> That's like saying residential telephone users don't need > > >to have a> phone number at which they can be reached. > > >(after all, the purpose of> their residential phones is to > > >call businesses for the purpose of> obtaining services, > > >right?) > > > > > > No, its not at all like saying that. Its like saying that > > > residential phone users don't need a globally unique > > > circuit facilities assignment(CFA) number. Indeed, most > > > residential telephone users aren't aware of that number, > > > even though they have one. The globably unique telephone > > > number is more comparable to the email address, or the > > > instant message id. > > > > only if you want to insist that every application that > > someone might want to run at home should require an expensive > > external infrastructure. (there are no polite words to > > describe people with that attitude) > > As Kazaa, Napster, Groove, and other protocols have > demonstrated, its quite easy to create peer-to-peer > applications without either expensive external infrastructure > or fixed, unique IP addresses. I'm afraid it isn't quite that easy. I contribute to a few discussion / help forums where people use these types applications, including IM with file transfer or VoIP, and the question as to how to re-configure the NAT/Firewall box to make the application work comes up quite often. However, people are willing to wear the inconvenience, as the benefits, legal or otherwise, are greater. Everything has a cost. For these types of applications, and the applications that Keith mentioned, IPv6 will be both cheaper and far more flexible than the IPv4+NAT combination. The scalability of > these protocols has threatened the Music and Movie > Industries--and thats really something. I wouldn't have > thought such a thing possible ten years ago. > This really doesn't say much about the scalability of the solution. What it indicates is how much effort people are willing to go to to commit what is perceived as victimless crime. If these applications work "out of the box" it means effort has be put into developing NAT traversal solutions. While this effort is necessary, it is sad that effort had to be expended. The developers could have been adding extra features, rather than working around a common network infrastructure limitation. Regards, Mark.