[36534] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Sprunk)
Tue Apr 10 13:36:46 2001
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:29:06 -0500
From: Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
To: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>, Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
Message-ID: <20010410122906.N17498@defiant.dfw.nostrum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Thus spake "Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
> I honestly believe that ARIN is funded by stock ownership in NAT
> provder technologies.
No, ARIN is funded by the ISPs which it doesn't require to follow its
allocation guidelines.
> They are the primary reason that we have NAT
> and RFC 1918 problems on the net everyday.
No, the reason we have NAT is because it's a lot easier for novice
network administrators to divvy up and route 10/8 than it is 208.x.x/20.
Any leaf network can get all the non-portable addresses they want, for a
price.
There's also a general perception that NAT increases security; some
"security" companies go so far as to say NAT removes the need for a
firewall. It's amazing how many network admins believe this.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "So long as they don't get violent, I want to let
CCIE #3723 everyone say what they wish, for I myself have always
K5SSS said exactly what pleased me." --Albert Einstein
