|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: NAT for an ISP
DA> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 18:48:01 -0400 DA> From: Dan Armstrong DA> I know this is mean to say, but most customers are STUPID and DA> keeping it centralized reduces our support load. Give them I'd almost go so far as to say most providers are stupid. "It hasn't bitten yet, so it must be okay" is very common. Ingress filtering of downstreams? Spoof protection for routers? Separate ethernet segments? Ha. Just how "centralized" should public address space be? DA> enough rope, they hang themselves. We used to do lots more DA> on the CPE, but between bad power supplies, lost passwords, DA> software upgrades, "power users", etc. we find our time is DA> better spent managing it all centrally. And you can't do this with non-RFC1918 addresses? DA> Also, customers might exist in several locations, we can give DA> them the same 1918 network in all locations, run NAT for DA> them, do VPNs for them, bring L2TP DSL into the fray, and DA> only bill them for traffic that goes "out to the Internet" DA> quite easily. And you can't do this with non-RFC1918 addresses? Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <[email protected]>, or you are likely to be blocked.
|