On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 10:09, Ross Werner wrote: > I guess I'm not quite sure I "get it", but why is NAT necessarily a "bad > thing"? Because it's not "how it's supposed to be"? Because it's klugey? > Bad design? Insecure?
NAT alters one of the fundamental beauties of the Net: that everyone can be not only a consumer but a publisher. "But I don't care about publishing. I don't care if the Net is becoming less egalitarian." Yes, you do. Certain things, like free p2p phone calls and such are much more difficult (if not down right impossible) without the ability to provide services in addition to consuming them. -- Stuart Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED], AIM:StuartMJansen> âThe programmer, like the poet, works only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff. He builds his castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the imagination. Few media of creation are so flexible, so easy to polish and rework, so readily capable of realizing grand conceptual structures.â -- Fredrick Brooks, Mythical Man Month
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
