quietly....

Sat Feb 5 11:12:26 UTC 2011

On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:54 AM, Roland Perry wrote:

> In article <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102041723070.54349 at murf.icantclick.org>, david raistrick <drais at icantclick.org> writes
>>> But NAT does have the useful (I think) side effect that I don't have to  renumber my network when I change upstream providers - whether that's once
>> 
>> But (what I keep being told) you should never have to renumber!  Get PI space and insert magic here!
> 
> Part of the problem is knowing in advance what ISPs will and won't do. It's all very well saying one shouldn't patronise an ISP that blocks port 25, for example, but where is that documented before you buy?
> 
If they don't document partial internet access blockage in the contract and the contract says they are providing internet access, then, they are in breach and you are free to depart without a termination fee and in most cases, demand a refund for service to date.

(Yes, I have successfully argued this on multiple occasions).

In fact, I get free internet in most of the more expensive hotel environments as a result.

> [My current 3G supplier blocks port 25 sometimes, I've yet to work out the algorithm used, it flips every day or two].
> 
> So will the likes of Vodafone and t-mobile support the PI model described above?

I use SPRINT. They used to. They've stopped. Admittedly, I'm not over-fussed about email on my phone and I don't use
a tether device at this point.

I mostly expect 3G and 4G networks to be broken internet anyway. I was more speaking in terms of land-line providers.

Owen
(Who only depends on his current residential ISPs for L2 transport and doesn't know what they block at L3 and up
as long as they don't break GRE)