97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

Tue Feb 10 22:57:49 UTC 2009

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:52:52 PST, Dave Temkin said:

> Why must it be always "real" versus NAT?  99% of users don't care one 
> way or another.  Would it be so hard for the carrier to provide a switch 
> between NAT and "real" IP if the user needs or wants it?

You're almost always better off not providing a user-accessible switch.
Especially not a shiny one labeled "Do not touch unless you know what
you are doing".

(FWIW, this is exactly the same issue as "block port 25 unless user requests
opt-out from the block")
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20090210/9b34a784/attachment.sig>