-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 08/02/2013 08:28 AM, Keith Moore wrote: > > On Aug 1, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >>> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@xxxxxxxxx> >> >>> The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the >>> ISP business model. >> >> So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs wanted to >> kill NAT, and I have other people telling me NAT was an intergral part of >> ISPs' master plan to take over the universe. >> >> Clearly you all both can't be right. > > ISPs were against NATs at first. It was only later that they embraced > them. > This mess is still the ISP fault. If they gave users what they wanted, which is multiple IP addresses, then they wouldn't have to install NAT (I am still paying $9.95 per month for the privilege of having 4 additional IPv4 addresses on my Comcast connection). And that would have accelerated IPv6 deployment. The firewall issue is orthogonal (which I put the blame on Microsoft sloppy coding practices). - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Email: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJR+1a7AAoJECnERZXWan7EK7MQAOTwF/oZp5nPSbygmgivYCCD W+TYtQhtikwMJHn1VriikxQlsKaDM/GtJuG9/Zwe7zj7rdu4Z7QkHQolD3CMhOPM d74rRnqTrFOxedyLoknly/xCkb/4cpb0q7zX06nRsrm6ufy84i6UWVX+HONcEkh1 /9rF1/6gNWlKIiEHjT9fmiOrdVU0D4I/sQaeGHrI4wCdIdr8PXVADPQ1mAQJlxVT FW4P5KfXRz7pBQ+vcmuHEn+3spf64ClP5fBD6DsEuujjU6P5mxaaTgKZqy9YXhHb 9buSk7xJINLN9oG2GAYKPw/WGLlVo/AzaOmQoRIP63+bFmFZ4JAIS/ikWvdWdI5A NJuxGML0Pp4sNAwtAOY5kAQsBwEdrJMDtUHNtSHCOarog/IpbPP9BKjgzF1owA+N AzEh08YqiE+f67hXE4cYrnXcF87BzcBeP3NXsuRF3jh2uAY4DGuTVLvLgG4Z1tfI aKXBQVekn3gdEFN4sMEjfEMih0gpS1mDqPm3ccVBQvD6WcWyZcFNwIiJGJfysBV3 EmAQC8W4hpSKQ7uzVhbpBb7M+puFJg7iIt6BprX60KoLXGx7HklsecdQXk6gYQA5 Pdr42nNiLZPwd3ehI8PR+K2qirXJUkKKBIn78rVt7UeuxEj+oN+GOQQSst3h2j4e qYDN6/Qx+xUcAy1Y7D8m =s1v7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----