On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: "But it's substandard service nonetheless."
Huh? We can certainly have an argument about what is a reasonable price, but if I can do *exactly* the same things (read/send e-mail, browse the web, transfer files, make connections to remote hosts via SSH, listen to BBC Radio 4, etc.) as I can from inside the corporate network, then what exactly makes this NAT service "substandard"?? Sure, I probably won't be able to make my laptop be a web server, nor will you be able to log into it from where you are, but who cares? That's NOT what the typical business traveller wants and the service provided is a lot more useful (and typically much cheaper) that the dialup alternative. I am not advocating the use of NATs, I am just observing that NATs are a fact of life and I have a hard time accepting that such a service cannot be defined as "Internet service". My home network is provided by a NAT too, but so far I have not found it to be a huge problem. There are other services that I would like to see, but they are prevented by policy and not by the NAT architecture per se. I don't think the IETF should be in the business of defining what constitues Internet service based on religion rather than reality. Ole _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
