Keith Moore wrote:
> Ed,
>
> We agree that the net has never been entirely homogeneous, and that it
> would be a Bad Thing if people were forced to make their local nets
> conform to someone's idea of the Right Way to do their networks.
Yes.
> Thus, I have few problems with folks who want to use NATs within their
> local networks and who understand and accept the limitations of that
> approach - even though, as you are fond of pointing out, this is an
> example of a local optimization that is sub-optimal for the global
> Internet community.
If it would be imposed. But IMO it is, however, globally optimal for the Internet
community to be able to solve their problems locally.
> OTOH, I have a big problem with constraining and/or encouraging folks
> to use NATs, while misleading folks about their limitations;
misleading is always bad.
> and with attempts to make NATs a part of the Internet architecutre and thereby
> forcing everyone to accept those limitations.
This is where we seem to diverge. IMO: (1) NATs are part of the Net archictecture and
a harbinger, not an intrusion or a misfit; (2) everything has limitations, but having
no
choice is always the worse limitation.
So, rather than following the "let a thousand standards bloom" dictum, I think
that NATs (and similar approaches) are actually a way to provide for interoperation
and reduce heterogeneity -- and its effect, which is isolation.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
