[arin-ppml] inevitability of NAT?
On 2/7/11 1:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2011, at 10:47 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> On 2/6/2011 8:36 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
>> and end users all have an interest in
>>> avoiding NAT.
>> wrong. End users absolutely need inexpensive - and I'm talking $60 and
>> under - stateful packet inspection hardware firewalls.
> Your statement is absolutely correct except for the first word.
Perhaps this is just semantics (and perhaps I'm just in a cynical mood), but I agree with Ted here. "wrong" is the correct term simply because "interest" is the wrong term. End
Users all do not have an interest in avoiding NAT. Most end users don't even know what it really does. As long as their stuff works and they have the illusion of security and
privacy, they are happy. (or at least less malcontented)
End users will benefit from IPv6 with stateful inspection but they have more interest in streaming the superbowl while being contently assured that their MP3 and porn folders are
'safe' from prying eyes.
Most end users will have to be coddled or "ninja'd" into IPv6, else the ever present threat of "going to the other provider". Of course at the other provider, they will end up on
IPv6 anyways because they'll accept having to buy a new CPE with new service far more often than they will to fix a problem they don't even perceive.
TCSN - The Computer Shop Netlink
1306 Pine St. Paso Robles CA 93446
1-(805) 227-7000 1-(800) 974-DISK
http://www.tcsn.net abuse at tcsn.net