[45327] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Fwd: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Jan 31 12:03:55 2002
Message-Id: <200201311703.g0VH3OqI006178@foo-bar-baz.cc.vt.edu>
To: "Martin J. Levy" <mahtin@mahtin.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 31 Jan 2002 07:57:38 PST."
<5.1.0.14.2.20020131074533.01e4e9f0@wheresmymailserver.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-635583304P";
micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:03:24 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_-635583304P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 07:57:38 PST, "Martin J. Levy" <mahtin@mahtin.com> said:
> Based upon the general desire for providers to have NAT'ed users and to
> reduce IP-space usage where appropriate, does this make sense? I can
> understand the providers desire to increase revenue, but I don't believe this
> is a good way to do it.
Which do you resemble more? Dilbert, or his pointy-haired boss?
Which does the person who made this business decision resemble more?
Yes, it sounds like a dumb idea, if it's true (which I haven't seen supported
yet).
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
--==_Exmh_-635583304P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQE8WXjccC3lWbTT17ARAgYZAKDJGGePg/BLPT92V0PZH6Cm0sed8gCgt1f/
BcWlH/xz66F7yc5eNAzxYbg=
=eAuI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_-635583304P--
