[13348] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: moving to IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay R. Ashworth)
Mon Nov 3 12:31:37 1997
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:14:59 -0500
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us>
To: nodlist@nodewarrior.net
Cc: Phil Howard <phil@charon.milepost.com>, nodlist@nodewarrior.net,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <ytafflewsy.fsf@cesium.clock.org>; from "Sean M. Doran" <smd@clock.org> on Mon, Nov 03, 1997 at 12:01:33PM -0500
On Mon, Nov 03, 1997 at 12:01:33PM -0500, Sean M. Doran wrote:
> Phil Howard <phil@charon.milepost.com> writes:
> > Test market a dialup service at a reduced rate that gives people a
> > private space address behind a proxy server.
>
> No, implement NAT in such a way that you can roll this
> service out without anyone noticing, except in the
> difficult case where an "inside" and "outside" address
> collision is triggered by using IP addresses rather than
> DNS names.
>
> Then once you've rolled it out, you can assign static IP
> addresses, large address ranges, and other popular
> shopping-list items that a number of users seem to want,
> to the extent that they are a market differentiator that
> in the absence of NAT favours less-conserving ISPs.
Large address ranges, yes. But the people who want static addresses,
by and large, want them precisely _because_ they are routable and
visible.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Cheers,
- -jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an
Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
