|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
Roland, I have a static IP w/DirecPC and I haven't noticed any problems running ICS on Win2K. Have things changed? --Michael ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roland Dobbins" <[email protected]> To: "Peter Bierman" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; "Beckmeyer" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:26 PM Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? > > I think a lot of the GRPS stuff is heading towards IPv6 w/IPv4 > gatewaying. > > The NAT issue has certainly resulted in a quite a few disgruntled > satellite customers (I'm thinking here primarily of direcpc.com) who're > willing to put up with the large latencies, but get really irate when > their apps won't work via NAT, or who want to run RFC1918 space for a > LAN at home, then find out that lots of stuff can't stand being NATted > twice. > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Roland Dobbins <[email protected]> // 650.776.1024 voice > > "Central databases already exist. Privacy is already gone." > > -- Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle Corporation > > On Wed, 2002-05-01 at 16:07, Peter Bierman wrote: > > > > At 3:03 PM -0700 5/1/02, Scott Francis wrote: > > >On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 02:55:02PM -0700, [email protected] said: > > >> > > >> I don't know if this is an annual argument yet, but the frog is in the > > >> pot, and the flame is on. Guess who's playing the part of the frog? > > >> Answer: ISPs who do this sort of thing. Value added security is a nice > > >> thing. Crippling Internet connections will turn the Internet into the > > >> phone company, where only the ISP gets to say what services are good and > > >> which ones are bad. While an ISP might view it appealing to be a baby > > >> bell, remember from whence we all come: the notion that the middle should > > >> not inhibit the endpoints from doing what they want. You find this to be > > >> a support headache? Offer a deal on Norton Internet Security or some > > >> such. Offer to do rules merges. Even offer a provisioning interface to > > >> some access-lists. Just make sure that when that next really fun game is > > >> delivered on a play station that speaka de IP your customers can play it, > > >> and that you haven't built a business model around them not being able to > > >> play it. > > > > > >As long as it is _clear_ from the get-go that customers behind NAT are > > >getting that service, and not publicly-routable IP space, I don't see the > > >problem. If they don't like it, they don't have to sign up to begin with - as > > >long as there is no doubt as to what kind of service they're getting, there > > >shouldn't be a problem (legally, at any rate). > > > > > > You've got to be kidding. Do you think it's clear to the average consumer > > buying a GPRS phone what NAT is, and why they might or might not want it? > > Do you think the use of NAT will be explained to these customers? Or > > clearly stated in 5pt text on page 17 of the service agreement? > > > > IMHO, as one of the people who will likely be using Cingular's GPRS network > > with a Danger HipTop, I _strongly_ hope they choose to use routable address > > space instead of NAT. I would hate for NAT to be an impediment to some cool > > new app no one has thought of yet because these gizmos aren't in widespread > > use yet. > > > > >This is not to say that if, as Eliot posits, the next Big Thing on the market > > >requires public IPs that your customer base won't all jump ship. That's a > > >risk that providers will have to weigh against the benefits of NAT. > > > > I'm more concerned that if the major metropolitan markets deploying GPRS > > all use NAT, then the Next Big Thing won't ever happen on GPRS devices. > > Customers won't jump ship if they have no where to jump to. That might > > sound attractive to the bean counters, but think of the customers you might > > never get in the first place. Also, I don't see how deploying NAT could be > > a cost savings over requesting real IP space. > > > > -pmb > > > > -- > > Ring around the Internet, | Peter Bierman <[email protected]> > > Packet with a bit not set | http://www.sfgoth.com/pmb/ > > SYN ACK SYN ACK, |"Nobody realizes that some people expend > > We all go down. -A. Stern | tremendous energy merely to be normal."-Al Camus > > > >
|