> Is this really the "right" model for that sort of interaction? Personally,
> my home network (in which every light bulb *will* be on the 'net within
> the year) is not something I want end-to-end connectivity to.
why not?
seems like if you want your light bulbs to be independently addressable
or pollable (can't wait for the SNMP lightbulb MIB!)
you want the ability to talk to them directly. OTOH, if for the
specific case of light bulbs you want some sort of "light management
system", then maybe you want to talk to that light management system
rather than to the individual light bulbs.
the point is, even though you might want some local resource managers
to mediate the use of light bulbs, whatever, that doesn't
mean that you want to block all outside connectivity to every device
in your home. if you have to have an ALG for everything you want
to control from outside that is going to impose a serious barrier
to the kinds of controllable devices you can have in your home -
because you won't be able to control it unless your NAT supports
the right ALG for each device you want to use.
and it's downright silly to have a wireless PDA (say a palm vii
or a pdq phone) and not be able to use it to talk to your devices
within the home just because your PDA and your home are on opposite
sides of a NAT.
