[47239] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Wed May 1 10:52:03 2002
Message-Id: <200205011451.g41EpRQn018414@foo-bar-baz.cc.vt.edu>
To: kevin graham <kgraham@dotnetdotcom.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:13:11 PDT."
<20020430115743.E67518-100000@lutra.i.dotnetdotcom.org>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1747214403P";
micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 10:51:27 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_-1747214403P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:13:11 PDT, kevin graham said:
> Given the bellowing over some of the allocations in 24/8 that have been
> heard here before, it would seem to be welcome. Sticking large numbers
> of unadministered, always-on boxes that aren't supposed to be running
> inbound services in unrouted space would save all of us headaches.
That's almost a better justification for NAT than address-space conservation. ;)
--==_Exmh_-1747214403P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQE80ADvcC3lWbTT17ARAoqsAJwJHhxMF29zVf2tlIFw7PBb8TGQCQCePkXR
Heg2JxWiJPNrO1ciSV1EUyo=
=xmWw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_-1747214403P--
