Subject: Re: Netmeeting - NAT issue

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:08:21 -0500

> From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>

    > The harm done to the growth potential of the Internet by the widespread
    > deployment of NAT routers is not the fault of the people who make them.

    > That there is a profitable business to be made in selling NAT
    > appliances to non-technical Internet users is *not* the root cause of
    > the problem. It's a symptom, and I think the IETF would do very well to
    > think long and hard about how to solve the real problem illustrated by
    > the ubiquity of NAT routers in residential settings

You're very much on target so far, and I energetically second your suggestion
that the IETF think about the *causes* of why this is really happening, but
you went astray here:

    > strategic opposition to the end-to-end architecture among large retail
    > Internet service providers.

I think you're seriously confused here. ISP's don't make a substantial share
of their money selling addresses (and therefore desiring a scarce market in
same), and I gather that for most of them, the costs of administering extra
addresses is just about covered (if at all) by the extra charging.

The real reason NAT boxes are popular is that they are the easiest and most
convenient way to hook up N computers in a "slot" designed for one. They are
definitely easier and more convenient than the IETF's designated "superior
solution".

One more example of the way the world seems to have this funny way of
sometimes picking technically inferior solutions for a variety of
out-of-engineering-scope reasons; q.v. Beta vs. VHS, RIP vs. OSPF, etc, etc.

	Noel

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 22 Mar 2002 01:24:02 -0000

> addresses is just about covered (if at all) by the extra charging.

Perhaps these ISPs do not desire a scarce market, but they do not wish to
run out of addresses (forcing them to buy more or turn away future
customers).

--gregbo