Dan,
>
> In order for Brian's argument to be correct in practice, then, I think we
> need (in addition to painless renumbering) a reasonable number (say, > 5)
> or truly independent ISPs competing for the business of the end user in
> question. I just don't see this happening for the majority of users any
> time soon.
>
I don't disagree with your analysis, but I think that you would agree that
there is nothing that we can put in the protocols that is going to break-up
a telco oligopoly. The best we can do is design tools that, when applied
to a competitive environment, will yield the desired results. The desired
results in this case would be an end to the proliferation of NATs. Ensuring
the competitive environment is definately out of scope for the IETF. That
doesn't mean we have to completely ignore market realities when designing
the tools.
Tim Hartrick
Mentat Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
