On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Scott Helms <[email protected]> wrote: > "I don't know that price is the problem with carbonite, or any backup > solution. > I think most folk don't see why they OUGHT to backup their > pictures/etc... until they needed to get them from a backup :(" > > Are you really trying to say they wouldn't get more customers if they could > lower their prices or alternatively increase marketing?
no, what I'm saying is I don't think price sensitivity is the thing that moves folk from backup or not. (but again, this is all a red herring anyway) > "I doubt it's 15%, if it is... wow they seem to be doing it wrong." > > I invite you to try and do some of the programming tricks needed to work > around NAT and the ongoing costs needed to run an external set of servers > just to handle session state. 15% is probably underestimating the costs, > but I don't have hard numbers to be any more precise. > great, no citation... rsync -f /etc/rsyncd.conf problem solved. (well, wrap a shell script to re-create that config as you add/remove users) > "this is a point problem (backup for carbonite), there are lots of > things that work 'just fine' with NAT (practically everything... it > would seem) I'm not sure digging more into why carbonite/etc are > 'hard' (because they aren't, because they are working...) is helpful." > > Just because it's easy for you, doesn't have a thing to do with the effort > that the Carbonite engineers and software folks had to put in to make it > easy. > > "I can imagine that, I have that silly thing that my dsl modem does > (zeroconf or whatever crazy sauce my windows ME desktop does to tell > the 'router' to open a port so johnny down the street can chat me).' > > Wait, are you really running Windows ME???? > I also don't actually play Angband. > "folk could deploy v6 though, eh? it's not costing THAT much I guess if > they can't get off their duffs and deploy v6 on the consumer networks > that don't already have v6 deployed. > > You can't be all: "NAT IS HARD!!! AND EXPENSIVE!!!" and not deploy v6." > > You're misunderstanding, IPv6 is expensive for the carriers and NAT is > expensive for the OTT service providers and software companies. Both are > hard and expensive, but to completely different groups. This is why > Netflix, Google, Carbonite, Spotify, and host of other content or OTT > services want the carriers to deploy IPv6. It's also why the carriers have > been less than enthusiastic. They get the bulk of the cost while others get > the bulk of the benefits. actually I think folk want ipv6 because it'll be more stable and reliable and permit the same fast growth of the network and services. Also, don't confuse CGN with home-nat. > "Frankly, SBCs exist for a whole host of reasons unrelated to NAT, so > that's a fine red herring you've also brought up." > > No, it's not. SBCs can and do a lot more than NAT transversal, but the > reasons that SIP operators of any scale can't live without them is NAT. > Anyone who tells you differently is misinformed they also can't connect with their peers in a sane fashion. I suppose if they didn't want any of their customers to talk outside the singular service they could avoid sbcs as well... I think there are other things than SBC devices which are capable of making sip work too in the face of NAT. -chris
