Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

[Masataka Ohta <[e-mail]>]

Aboba;

> >I don't see any problems people making money 
> >on weird NAT-munging-weirdo-webonly-wap things 
> >which they sell to customers
> 
> "Making money" implies that for every seller
> there is a willing buyer. For NAT to have
> progressed from a twinkle-in-the-eye to the
> near ubiquity that it will have in a few
> years, there need to be a *lot* of willing
> buyers. The marketplace rewards those who
> satisfy a perceived need. 
> 
> If we would prefer that those customers
> choose another solution (IPv6), then we
> will need to make it every bit as easy 
> to install and use as the alternative. 

See draft-ohta-address-allocation-00.txt on how to commercially motivate
ISPs (and private IP network providers with NAT, too) deploy IPv6 service.

It also makes NAT unnecessary.

> I'm not sure that in practice this is a
> distinction that will ever be universally
> understood in the marketplace. AOL isn't
> Internet access either, but it serves
> more than 25 million users. As with
> NAT, AOL thrives because it fills a
> perceived need better than the alternative.

If IETF makes it clear that AOL is not an ISP, it will commercially
motivate AOL to be an ISP.

						Masataka Ohta