|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Service providers that NAT their whole network?
That makes very little sense to me since the smaller providers can get a /22 directly from ARIN. I, personaly, would never purchase service from a provider that insisted on sticking me behind NAT. SPRINT PCS does not NAT my cellphone. I receive a dynamic address at connection time, but, it is a real address. What they do that annoys me is they block UDP Port 53 to non-sprint nameservers, and, the phone browser is hard-coded to a particular sprint HTTP Proxy server. If the practice is becoming more common, that is very unfortunate. Owen --On Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:09 AM -0400 Philip Matthews <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks to everyone who replied to my question about NAT usage > in service providers (see original posting below). > I got a lot of private replies, as well as those > who posted to the list. > > To summarize: > It seems that there are quite a few providers who do this. > I was told of at least 24 providers in the U.S., as well as providers > in Canada, in Central America, in Europe, and in Africa which which > do this. > > It was suggested by a number of people that this was quite common > on WiFi access and for data services on cell phones. > I also heard about a number of cable access providers that do this, > and its use on DSL access was mentioned a couple of times. > (Many people didn't say what access types were affected, so I don't > feel I can derive any meaningful statistics). > > A number of smaller providers told me that they do it because they > simply cannot get enough routable IP addresses from their upstream > providers. > > If I was to speculate, I would guess that the practice might be more > common amongst newer providers, and with newer access methods on > more established providers. > > - Philip > > > > Philip Matthews wrote: >> >> A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers >> that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their >> customers get private addresses rather than public address. >> It is often stated that these are primarily cable-based providers. >> >> I am trying to get a handle on how common this practice is. >> No one that I have asked seems to know any provider that does this, >> and a search of a few FAQs plus about an hour of Googling hasn't >> turned up anything definite (but maybe I am using the wrong keywords >> ...). >> >> Can anyone give me some names of providers that do this? >> >> Can anyone point me at any documents that indicate how common >> this practice is? >> >> - Philip >> >> (*) Some IETF documents that mention this practice: >> - RFC 3489 >> - draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios-00.txt >> (now expired, but available at >> >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02jul/I-D/draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenari >> os-00.txt >> >> >> > -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. Attachment:
pgp00012.pgp
|