Large ISPs doing NAT?

kevin graham kgraham at dotnetdotcom.org
Tue Apr 30 19:13:11 UTC 2002



> and then you have those 'pdp-contexts' or how they call it. it's just
> another acronym for a vpn... if a corporate user requires full ip
> connectivity then why not give him a vpn uplink directly to their hq

This is probably impractical -- just try to (consistently) get your DSL
provider to provision multiple PVC's. Technology that's there, been there,
and makes alot of sense, but convincing someone to sell it is still
difficiult.

> > An Internet Service Provider gives the customer a full
> > connection to the Internet.  All IP protocols should work.
>
> you also may give the [common] user an opportunity to have 'limited'
> service set (so you can use private addresses + nat/pat) for lower price
> or pay a bit more for 'full' service.

Given the fairly common broadband SLA's that deny running any servers, it
almost seems prudent _to_ use NAT for these users. Going NAT rather than
NAPT takes care of almost all cases (AFAIK even more troublesome protocols
such as h323 are commonly accomodated). Besides, it gives vendor C an
excuse to push bigger and bigger PXF platforms.

Given the bellowing over some of the allocations in 24/8 that have been
heard here before, it would seem to be welcome. Sticking large numbers
of unadministered, always-on boxes that aren't supposed to be running
inbound services in unrouted space would save all of us headaches.

> do you think they will download mp3's and avi's via gprs? how? :))

Unless I've fallen for marketing ambiguities, even current GPRS handsets
are including PC connectivity for GPRS data, so applications are a given;
though "would you want to" still remains (wouldn't imagine wireless
carriers are rushing to provide scads of connectivity while still nursing
WAP burns).

..kg..




More information about the NANOG mailing list