North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: moving to IPv6
On Mon, Nov 03, 1997 at 12:01:33PM -0500, Sean M. Doran wrote: > Phil Howard <[email protected]> writes: > > Test market a dialup service at a reduced rate that gives people a > > private space address behind a proxy server. > > No, implement NAT in such a way that you can roll this > service out without anyone noticing, except in the > difficult case where an "inside" and "outside" address > collision is triggered by using IP addresses rather than > DNS names. > > Then once you've rolled it out, you can assign static IP > addresses, large address ranges, and other popular > shopping-list items that a number of users seem to want, > to the extent that they are a market differentiator that > in the absence of NAT favours less-conserving ISPs. Large address ranges, yes. But the people who want static addresses, by and large, want them precisely _because_ they are routable and visible. Why is this so hard to understand? Cheers, - -jra -- Jay R. Ashworth [email protected] Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
|