[12296] in North American Network Operators' Group
NAT (was Re: too many routes)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sanjay Dani)
Thu Sep 11 21:13:51 1997
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 18:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sanjay Dani <sanjay@professionals.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
>From smd@clock.org Thu Sep 11 13:13 PDT 1997
>"Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us> writes:
>> Perhaps I misunderstood Sanjay, Sean, but I believe his concern was
>> that the addresses _not be the property of an upstream (ie: backbone)
>> provider_ to provide flexibility of connection choice.
>
>Welcome to the new Internet, which is being built.
>
>Two of the fundamental concepts that are important:
>
> -- IP addresses are not forever
> -- IP addresses are not end-to-end
Jay paraphrased my concerns correctly.
NAT does not give any incentives to an independently addressed
provider (that does not own global physical infrastructure)
to switch to using "multiple outward-facing addresses [from
upstream providers' address space]".
Hey, if I were a dreamer, I wouldn't count on those clueless,
bandwidth stealing, soon-to-be squashed or consolidated,
small providers, to help me bring through my vision ;-)
No disrespect meant. I do enjoy reading and learning from
the long, well written articles of the experienced folks
out there. However, a small provider (one that believes
they engineer better Internet throughput for clients'
web servers than some of the big boys), would rather watch
the bottomline.
Sanjay.
