[e2e] the evolution of deployability

[J. Noel Chiappa]

    > From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed at reed.com>

    > NAT is a great example.

NAT is a really bad example, actually.

    > Vendors M and C ... got very aggressive in selling NAT, despite its
    > severe design limitations and application impact. They marketed
    > heavily to users and IETF a set of solutions that clearly broke end
    > user applications already deployed. At the same time, these two
    > vendors refused to consider an incremental migration path to IPv6,
    > arguing that it "wasn't ready yet".

IPv6 and NAT is just a really bad example of what you're trying to talk
about; and the reasons why IPv6 has done poorly, and NAT well, are much more
complex than your simplistic and incorrect analysis would indicate.

NAT took off because it is, for the average user who wants to do fairly
simple stuff, an easier *and* more functional (at the time *they* deploy it)
solution. I.e. if you install IPv6 on all your computers - you still need a
NAT-type box to talk to the rest of the existing IPv4 Internet. Most people
skip the painful/relatively-non-productive "install IPv6" step, and just go
straight to installing the NAT box.

C and M, I'm fairely sure, have no religion other than $$$, and would have
sold the customers sky-blue left-handed rabbits if that's what the customers
wanted. They sold NAT boxes because that's what customers wanted.

E.g., the people who started the "IPv6-Haters" mailing list didn't work for
either C or M.

	Noel