On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
"I don't know that price is the problem with carbonite, or any backup solution. I think most folk don't see why they OUGHT to backup their pictures/etc... until they needed to get them from a backup :("
Are you really trying to say they wouldn't get more customers if they could lower their prices or alternatively increase marketing?
no, what I'm saying is I don't think price sensitivity is the thing that moves folk from backup or not. (but again, this is all a red herring anyway)
"I doubt it's 15%, if it is... wow they seem to be doing it wrong."
I invite you to try and do some of the programming tricks needed to work around NAT and the ongoing costs needed to run an external set of servers just to handle session state. 15% is probably underestimating the costs, but I don't have hard numbers to be any more precise.
great, no citation... rsync -f /etc/rsyncd.conf problem solved. (well, wrap a shell script to re-create that config as you add/remove users)
"this is a point problem (backup for carbonite), there are lots of things that work 'just fine' with NAT (practically everything... it would seem) I'm not sure digging more into why carbonite/etc are 'hard' (because they aren't, because they are working...) is helpful."
Just because it's easy for you, doesn't have a thing to do with the effort that the Carbonite engineers and software folks had to put in to make it easy.
"I can imagine that, I have that silly thing that my dsl modem does (zeroconf or whatever crazy sauce my windows ME desktop does to tell the 'router' to open a port so johnny down the street can chat me).'
Wait, are you really running Windows ME????
I also don't actually play Angband.
"folk could deploy v6 though, eh? it's not costing THAT much I guess if they can't get off their duffs and deploy v6 on the consumer networks that don't already have v6 deployed.
You can't be all: "NAT IS HARD!!! AND EXPENSIVE!!!" and not deploy v6."
You're misunderstanding, IPv6 is expensive for the carriers and NAT is expensive for the OTT service providers and software companies. Both are hard and expensive, but to completely different groups. This is why Netflix, Google, Carbonite, Spotify, and host of other content or OTT services want the carriers to deploy IPv6. It's also why the carriers have been less than enthusiastic. They get the bulk of the cost while others get the bulk of the benefits.
actually I think folk want ipv6 because it'll be more stable and reliable and permit the same fast growth of the network and services. Also, don't confuse CGN with home-nat.
"Frankly, SBCs exist for a whole host of reasons unrelated to NAT, so that's a fine red herring you've also brought up."
No, it's not. SBCs can and do a lot more than NAT transversal, but the reasons that SIP operators of any scale can't live without them is NAT. Anyone who tells you differently is misinformed
they also can't connect with their peers in a sane fashion. I suppose if they didn't want any of their customers to talk outside the singular service they could avoid sbcs as well... I think there are other things than SBC devices which are capable of making sip work too in the face of NAT. -chris