NAT (was Re: too many routes)

Sanjay Dani sanjay at
Fri Sep 12 01:10:56 UTC 1997

>From smd at Thu Sep 11 13:13 PDT 1997
>"Jay R. Ashworth" <jra at> writes:
>> Perhaps I misunderstood Sanjay, Sean, but I believe his concern was
>> that the addresses _not be the property of an upstream (ie: backbone)
>> provider_ to provide flexibility of connection choice.
>Welcome to the new Internet, which is being built.
>Two of the fundamental concepts that are important:
>	-- IP addresses are not forever
>	-- IP addresses are not end-to-end

Jay paraphrased my concerns correctly.

NAT does not give any incentives to an independently addressed
provider (that does not own global physical infrastructure)
to switch to using "multiple outward-facing addresses [from
upstream providers' address space]".

Hey, if I were a dreamer, I wouldn't count on those clueless,
bandwidth stealing, soon-to-be squashed or consolidated,
small providers, to help me bring through my vision ;-)

No disrespect meant. I do enjoy reading and learning from
the long, well written articles of the experienced folks
out there. However, a small provider (one that believes
they engineer better Internet throughput for clients'
web servers than some of the big boys), would rather watch
the bottomline.


More information about the NANOG mailing list