North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:07:34PM -0700, [email protected] said: [snip] > >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? The average customer buying a "web-enabled" phone doesn't need a publicly-routeable IP. I challenge anybody to demonstrate why a cell phone needs a public IP. It's a PHONE, not a server. > 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? There's enough other fine print that adding this in somewhere should not be an issue. > 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. I am totally in favor of public IPs being an _option_ for use with PDAs, phones and the like - but for the average user, I do not see it being a necessity, or even really a benefit. > >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. I'm not saying it's the best course of action necessarily; I was trying to make the "best tool for the job" argument. There are cases where NAT is a definite advantage, or where having a public IP offers no clear benefits, if not any obvious risks. Until the model changes drastically, I just don't see the average phone/wireless PDA user needing a public IP for every device she/he has. But it should definitely remain an option - just like static IPs on DSL is an option with most providers. > -pmb -- Scott Francis [email protected] [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t Systems/Network Manager [email protected] [work:] t o n o s . c o m GPG public key 0xCB33CCA7 illum oportet crescere me autem minui Attachment:
pgp00005.pgp
|