[144363] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: what about the users re: NAT444 or ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christian de Larrinaga)
Fri Sep 9 13:28:30 2011
From: Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net>
In-Reply-To: <028401cc6e47$a3faae70$ebf00b50$@com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:27:50 +0100
To: "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>
Cc: 'NANOG' <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
exactly. don't plan to deploy what breaks things for the user edge.=20
there are two issues here=20
1/ what ISPs do that might break things at the edge
2/ what edge stuff is doing that will break things at the other end edge =
of a connection
It seems a bit odd that ISPs would actively plot to do 1/ whilst they =
could be making hard cash helping people at the edge avoid 2/
Odd because it adds a 3/ element which is stuff at the edge which will =
break stuff in the network. Do (some) operators see more money in a =
1/2/3/ world?
Christian
On 8 Sep 2011, at 17:52, Dan Wing wrote:
>> Is there not a bit of CPE needed here? What should the CPE do? and =
not
>> do? should it deprecate NAT/PAT when it receives 1918 allocation from =
a
>> CGN?
>=20
> Careful with that idea -- people like their in-home network to =
continue
> functioning even when their ISP is down or having an outage.
