On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Keith Moore wrote:
On 07/12/2013 09:28 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 07/12/2013 08:16 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
And before people start bringing up all the reasons I am wrong here, first consider the fact that for many years it was IETF ideology that NATs were a
terrible thing that had to be killed. A position I suspect was largely driven by some aggressive lobbying by rent-seeking ISPs looking to collect fees
on a per device basis rather than per connection.
You are weakening your argument. NATs still are a terrible thing that need to be killed.
There is an argument in the above? I read just a misguided opinion with
no facts.
They break applications and prevent many useful applications from being used on
the Internet. That much is more widely understood now than it was 10-15 years ago.
It was always understood by the engineers. It's the money making machine
that did not care.
I think that at this point you are the only person still making the argument that the world should reject the easy fix for IPv4 address exhaustion that solves their problems
at negligible cost to them for the sake of forcing them to make a transition that would be very difficult, expensive and impact every part of the infrastructure.
I suggest Phillip is rewarded with a staticly configured 192.168.1.1
address for life on _all_ of his devices.
Most folk here value consensus. I do not value consensus when it is wrong.
Nor do I.
Indeed.
"When you're NAT on the net, you're NOT on the net"
-- Hugh Daniel
Paul