![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
>It seems to me that these two can't both be true. IP Addresses cannot at >once be scarce enough to charge for and non-scarce enough that scarcity is >a non-issue. I don't think anybody's actually saying that addresses aren't scarce; they're saying that NAT solves the scarcity problem. Meanwhile, cable companies aren't actually worried about charging per address; their (perceived) problem is unauthorized users, and they're using addresses as a proxy for users. /================================================================\ |John Stracke |Principal Engineer | |jstracke at incentivesystems.com |Incentive Systems, Inc. | |http://www.incentivesystems.com|My opinions are my own. | |================================================================| |He wondered if Elli was going to buy that explanation. His taste| |for heavily-armed girlfriends did have its drawbacks. | \================================================================/
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.