[137305] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeroen van Aart)
Thu Feb 10 18:37:22 2011
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:37:10 -0800
From: Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <8762stc5a7.fsf@oban.berlin.quux.de>
X-Assp-Envelope-From: jeroen@mompl.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Jens Link wrote:
> I never thought it was that bad. In some 3G/wireless networks in Germany
> the providers use NAT and transparent HTTP-proxy. But this is only
> wireless. I'm not aware of any DSL or Cable provider NATing their
> customers.
I guess in the early days of DSL and Cable internet this was more common
(until clue sinked in). I know xs4all in the Netherlands used some NAT
flavour or another. Although come to think of it, it was probably the
telco (KPN) who did that and the ISP just had to abide. They quickly got
rid of that whole idea.
It's a strange idea that the telco provides NAT'ing on DSL but I am
pretty sure it was that way for a while.
KPN since bought xs4all, but that's another story.
--
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
