In message <f55ff9c4fdb76643ae0cec06d0f5ceb3048557b...@skyhawk>, Chris Engel wr ites: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= > ----------------- > "Wrong. End users and board members typically don't understand what NATs a= > re, nor their effects on the network's ability to support applications. If= > they want to run an app that doesn't work on your network, they blame the = > app, even though the NATs in your network are what is screwing up the app. > > Furthermore, end users and board members don't understand the degree to whi= > ch the widespread deployment of NATs is artificially raising the cost of de= > ploying new apps, and denying them useful new apps which might help employe= > es in their work and help their company's competitiveness. > > Again, in IPv4, it's pretty much a moot point because address scarcity trum= > ps everything else. But that's not the case for IPv6." > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= > ----------------- > > Correct, but what they DO understand is whether they are satisfied with the= > services delivered to them or not...... whether their NEEDS are being met.= > .....and whether the budget they pay for those services equals the VALUE pr= > ovided by them.
You seem to confuse NEED with DESIRE or WANT. With IPv4 people NEEDED NAT because there is not enough IP addresses to give every machine one. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
