NAT for an ISP

Wed Jun 4 23:26:16 UTC 2003

DA> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 18:48:01 -0400
DA> From: Dan Armstrong

DA> I know this is mean to say, but most customers are STUPID and
DA> keeping it centralized reduces our support load.  Give them

I'd almost go so far as to say most providers are stupid.  "It
hasn't bitten yet, so it must be okay" is very common.

Ingress filtering of downstreams?  Spoof protection for routers?
Separate ethernet segments?  Ha.  Just how "centralized" should
public address space be?

DA> enough rope, they hang themselves.  We used to do lots more
DA> on the CPE, but between bad power supplies, lost passwords,
DA> software upgrades, "power users",  etc. we find our time is
DA> better spent managing it all centrally.

And you can't do this with non-RFC1918 addresses?

DA> Also, customers might exist in several locations, we can give
DA> them the same 1918 network in all locations, run NAT for
DA> them, do VPNs for them, bring L2TP DSL into the fray, and
DA> only bill them for traffic that goes "out to the Internet"
DA> quite easily.

And you can't do this with non-RFC1918 addresses?

Eddy
--
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist at brics.com>
To: blacklist at brics.com
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <blacklist at brics.com>, or you are likely to
be blocked.