|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Suspected SPAM: NAT for an ISP
This question appears to be as to whether the @home setup presented at nanog28 is a good idea rather than the usual 1918 on public links. This is not uncommon for cable modem users etc And yes, things will break like voip, vpns.. but I guess its up to the service provider as to whether nat-only apps are considered supported or not. (There are no violations of 1918 in this which is the usual topic along these lines.) So is that it, thread done? :) Steve On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Muir, Ronald wrote: > > It is about time for the semi annual RFC1918 rants. ;-( > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christopher J. Wolff [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:52 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Suspected SPAM: NAT for an ISP > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > I would like to know if any service providers have built > > their access networks out using private IP space. It > > certainly would benefit the global IP pool but it may > > adversely affect users with special applications. At any > > rate, it sounds like good fodder for a debate. > > > > Regards, > > Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO > > Broadband Laboratories, Inc. > > http://www.bblabs.com > > > > > > > > >
|