<div dir="ltr">On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Doug Barton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dougb@dougbarton.us" target="_blank">dougb@dougbarton.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>What I suspect you mean when you say (elsewhere) that ULA+NPT costs<br>
nothing is that it costs /you/ (or "the network operator") nothing.<br>
But there is a cost, and you've just moved it elsewhere.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Can you define what you believe those costs are, and why they are important?</blockquote><div><br></div><div> </div><div><div>Higher operational cost caused by more complex, stateful operation of the network. Lower reliability due to NAT leading to loss of said state and interrupted sessions. Higher capex caused by boxes having to do more complex stuff (NAT vs. route). Higher cost and a higher barrier to entry for application developers as they each have to re-learn NAT traversal (and no, NAT traversal is *not* the same as traversing a stateful firewall - that's easier). Lower quality of service when said applications perform worse. Believe it or not, Skype on my phone works better on the a one-NAT 3G network than on a double-natted 1Gbps fiber connection.</div>
</div></div></div></div>