Suspected SPAM: NAT for an ISP
Stephen J. Wilcox
steve at telecomplete.co.uk
Thu Jun 5 10:05:58 UTC 2003
This question appears to be as to whether the @home setup presented at nanog28
is a good idea rather than the usual 1918 on public links.
This is not uncommon for cable modem users etc
And yes, things will break like voip, vpns.. but I guess its up to the service
provider as to whether nat-only apps are considered supported or not. (There are
no violations of 1918 in this which is the usual topic along these lines.)
So is that it, thread done? :)
Steve
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Muir, Ronald wrote:
>
> It is about time for the semi annual RFC1918 rants. ;-(
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christopher J. Wolff [mailto:chris at bblabs.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:52 PM
> > To: nanog at merit.edu
> > Subject: Suspected SPAM: NAT for an ISP
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to know if any service providers have built
> > their access networks out using private IP space. It
> > certainly would benefit the global IP pool but it may
> > adversely affect users with special applications. At any
> > rate, it sounds like good fodder for a debate.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO
> > Broadband Laboratories, Inc.
> > http://www.bblabs.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list