|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical NAT (was Re: too many routes)
>From [email protected] Thu Sep 11 13:13 PDT 1997 >"Jay R. Ashworth" <[email protected]> writes: >> Perhaps I misunderstood Sanjay, Sean, but I believe his concern was >> that the addresses _not be the property of an upstream (ie: backbone) >> provider_ to provide flexibility of connection choice. > >Welcome to the new Internet, which is being built. > >Two of the fundamental concepts that are important: > > -- IP addresses are not forever > -- IP addresses are not end-to-end Jay paraphrased my concerns correctly. NAT does not give any incentives to an independently addressed provider (that does not own global physical infrastructure) to switch to using "multiple outward-facing addresses [from upstream providers' address space]". Hey, if I were a dreamer, I wouldn't count on those clueless, bandwidth stealing, soon-to-be squashed or consolidated, small providers, to help me bring through my vision ;-) No disrespect meant. I do enjoy reading and learning from the long, well written articles of the experienced folks out there. However, a small provider (one that believes they engineer better Internet throughput for clients' web servers than some of the big boys), would rather watch the bottomline. Sanjay.
|