North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...

  • From: Valdis.Kletnieks
  • Date: Fri Sep 07 14:08:34 2001

On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 10:26:02 PDT, Jon Mansey <[email protected]>  said:

> All the previous times this discussion has arisen here, I have 
> concluded that "real" IPs should only be owned and used by folks with 
> clue, everyone else gets a NATed IP. Discuss.

There are those who would argue that you just disenfranchised every user
that connects via <insert list of top 10 access providers here>.

On the other hand, you *DID* just solve the address space problem - since
we know that the majority of dialup users are clueless, and the majority
of .com's are lame too, the average ISP should be able to get by with
just 10 or 15 IP addresses and NAT everybody behind those.

That's like saying "You're only allowed to direct-dial your phone if
you know how many volts are between the red and green wires, and what
it's there for - everybody else has to ask the operator for assistance".

Cross out "operator" and put in "NAT", and that's your proposal.....

				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

Attachment: pgp00001.pgp
Description: PGP signature