Big providers use NAT to squeeze little ISPs

• Previous message (by thread): Big providers use NAT to squeeze little ISPs
• Next message (by thread): Big providers use NAT to squeeze little ISPs
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Karl Denninger wrote :
|-> >   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.
|-> 

Not true. I doubt that your links comprise much more than 100Mb or so 
(which the existing PIX does OK) and you could certainly make 
something like a fast PC perform NAT at *lots* of pps or Kbps.

 The only thing with NAT is that you need some memory, but again, the 
PIX has a limit of ~16,000 *simultaneous* conversations and doesn't 
have much RAM to play with.

|-> >   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"?
|-> > 
|-> >   -alan
|-> 
|-> 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.
|-> 



I've had a wonderful time...
...but this wasn't it.

• Previous message (by thread): Big providers use NAT to squeeze little ISPs
• Next message (by thread): Big providers use NAT to squeeze little ISPs
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]