|> From: Jon Mansey [mailto:jon_mansey@verestar.com] |> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 10:26 AM |> |> It seems a pretty simple argument to me. |> |> Do I want as many people using (and maybe _buying_, what a concept!) |> my app as possible with the least amount of network clue and setup |> headaches, or do I want to eliminate most of the corporate, SOHO, |> cable, DSL, Linux population because I cant be bothered to |> develop my app to be NAT-friendly. |> |> Duh! Since when, is an app supposed to care what's in the middle? Even firewalls are supported by middle-ware. NAT boundaries aren't. That's because NAT boundaries are unpredictable in both presence and character. As the man said, there is no NATpd so the end-points have to do all the work. Note that, it is the *only* boundary method where this is so. This is the fundimental reason that NAT is architectural fubar. |> All the previous times this discussion has arisen here, I have |> concluded that "real" IPs should only be owned and used by |> folks with clue, everyone else gets a NATed IP. Discuss. I sincerely hope that you are not telling your customers that they have full internet access. Also, is a quiz required to be a customer of yours? Is it a standardized test? Most customers, given such an opportunity, will find another ISP. They don't know, they don't want to know, and they will find someone that won't make them know.