Mark Smith wrote: > Not only may the next "killer app" not be the next "killer app" because it > doesn't work with NAT, the next "killer app" may have already been invented a > year ago, but wasn't able to be deployed because of the prevalance of NAT. Not > only don't we know, we also don't know what we may be missing. The next "killer app" a lot more important than Web for most business people is the "Internet telephony", which may or may not use IETF standard protocol. Even though there are people who can not type, most of them can use telephony (maybe over TDD). And the second next "killer app" a lot more important than Web for most people including, but not limited to, business ones is "Internet TV", which may or may not use IETF or Microsoft standard protocol. It has already happened to millions of people in Japan initiated by a commercial company and there will be tens and hundreds of millions of people using them. > This is the problem with NAT - it appears to be a nice easy solution, until > you realise that the devil is in the details. Yup. If you insist on NAT, you lose a lot of business chances. I can proudly say that I helped the commercial company above get global IPv4 addresses enough for millions of subscribers, which was essential for their aggressive service. The reality of life is that there are successful ISPs and there are poor network providers insisting on NAT. Masataka Ohta _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf