Big providers use NAT to squeeze little ISPs
karl at Mcs.Net
Thu Feb 27 01:31:28 UTC 1997
> I will restart my question as such:
> It is my understanding that;
> One of your principal objections to NAT boxes is that they are
> motivated by technical and trade practices you find dishonest.
> Please define and expound.
My principal objection to NAT is that it breaks lots of things, including
some servers, that customers want to put on their networks.
At the PROVIDER level, especially at the level we run at, there is no NAT
box made fast enough to do the job regardless of price.
> Do you really think that big ISP puts in /19 filters to make life
> hard for the "little guy" at the bottom of the "money pile"?
As long as a provider can get their own /19 I have no problem with
prefix filtering at the /19 level.
The problem comes about when big ISPs filter at /19s *AND* the allocators
of space refuse to give ISPs /19s.
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
More information about the NANOG