>>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Anthony> That's exactly why you only need one telephone per family. Anthony> These are people who don't need to be individually reachable.
Families are going toward a telephone per person with caller id and/or distinctive ring to figure out who should answer. That sure sounds like NAT to me! They would take a phone number per person, but someone there aren't enough phone numbers available cheaply enough or a mechanism to communicate them to the end-node to make this work. Mobile phone companies are offering cell phones for each member of the family with calling plans. My wife and I possess a total of 5 telephone numbers (counting mobile and pagers) because the phone company does not offer the equivalent of mobileIP. Plus her work number, at which I can't reach her after the receptionist has gone home, and her mobile phone is non-functional due to building issues, but that's okay since her patient's pace-makers prefer it that way. Anthony> That's also exactly why you only need one telephone per Anthony> business. These are employees who don't need to be individually Anthony> reachable. The receptionist can have one telephone, and he or Anthony> she can just physically bring any other employee who needs to be Anthony> contacted to the phone in the reception area. That works for some businesses perhaps. It fails in most white collar work. Ever try to get ahold of someone *AFTER THE RECEPTIONIST HAS GONE HOME*? ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [