[47232] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mike harrison)
Wed May 1 01:33:20 2002
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 01:32:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: mike harrison <meuon@highertech.net>
To: Tony Rall <trall@almaden.ibm.com>
Cc: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <OF3E5B0062.946E2177-ON88256BAB.00615BC1-88256BAB.0062CF75@almaden.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10205010125150.31417-100000@home.highertech.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> On Monday, 2002-04-29 at 08:43 MST, Beckmeyer <beck@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Is anybody here doing NAT for their customers?
Tony Rall:
> If you're NATing your customers you're no longer an ISP. You're a
> sort-of-tcp-service-provider (maybe a little udp too). NAT (PAT even more
Depends on scale and application. We have lots of customers
that we NAT, one way or another. And a lot more that we don't.
Some customers WANT to 'just see out' and they like all the 'weird stuff
turned off'. Sometimes it's a box at the customers end, sometimes
it's nat'd IP's on the dial-up/ISDN/FracT1/T1/Wireless connection itself.
Saying we are not an ISP because we do some NAT is a little harsh.
Giving the customer options and making things work (when done right,
and explained properly.... we have no sales droids) is good business
and I think good for the 'net. It gives the clueless (and sometimes
cluefull) just a little more isolation.
What is wrong is NAT'ing when you should not.
