quietly....

Thu Feb 3 20:24:57 UTC 2011

On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 12:35:46PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/3/2011 12:17 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >		Cost of application development
> 
> Applications do not have to be written to support NAT (NAT66
> shouldn't find itself in the areas where it's traditionally been a
> problem). The burden should be upon the NAT device to fix any
> issues, and this will be paid for by the few that utilize NAT.

You're joking, right?

> >		Cost of administration
> 
> If I choose to use NAPTv6, it's right to accept this cost. It
> doesn't make someone else pay more for me to administer my firewall.
> 
> >		Cost of operations
> 
> If I choose to use NAPTv6, it's right to accept this cost. It
> doesn't make someone else pay more for me to administer my firewall.

Oh wait... you're *serious*?

Have you never in your career come up against another party that says "this
is how we do it, and if you want to do business with us you can do it our
way or get stuffed"?  All of a sudden, their decision to use NAT and/or do
other spectacularly stupid things with their networks impacts on *me*[1],
and costs *me* money.  It doesn't work out like the optimistic utopia you're
espousing.

- Matt

[1] Is there such thing as a "royal me"?  There should be.