[111701] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Feb 10 17:59:00 2009
To: Dave Temkin <davet1@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:52:52 PST."
<49920544.6@gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:57:49 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1234306669_23150P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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")
--==_Exmh_1234306669_23150P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFJkgZtcC3lWbTT17ARAs0qAKCWAYko650eV1CRocLggkrFLuiR1wCgn3iy
H4a+v4gphvv28ayffNs0RKw=
=Q1cM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1234306669_23150P--
