[47255] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Francis)
Wed May 1 18:07:46 2002
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 15:03:36 -0700
From: Scott Francis <darkuncle@darkuncle.net>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: mike harrison <meuon@highertech.net>,
Tony Rall <trall@almaden.ibm.com>,
"nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
Message-ID: <20020501220335.GI73164@darkuncle.net>
Mail-Followup-To: Scott Francis <darkuncle@darkuncle.net>,
Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, mike harrison <meuon@highertech.net>,
Tony Rall <trall@almaden.ibm.com>,
"nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jQIvE3yXcK9X9HBh"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3CD06436.60008@cisco.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--jQIvE3yXcK9X9HBh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 02:55:02PM -0700, lear@cisco.com said:
>=20
> I don't know if this is an annual argument yet, but the frog is in the=20
> pot, and the flame is on. Guess who's playing the part of the frog?=20
> Answer: ISPs who do this sort of thing. Value added security is a nice=
=20
> thing. Crippling Internet connections will turn the Internet into the=20
> phone company, where only the ISP gets to say what services are good and=
=20
> which ones are bad. While an ISP might view it appealing to be a baby=20
> bell, remember from whence we all come: the notion that the middle should=
=20
> not inhibit the endpoints from doing what they want. You find this to be=
=20
> a support headache? Offer a deal on Norton Internet Security or some=20
> such. Offer to do rules merges. Even offer a provisioning interface to=
=20
> some access-lists. Just make sure that when that next really fun game is=
=20
> delivered on a play station that speaka de IP your customers can play it,=
=20
> and that you haven't built a business model around them not being able to=
=20
> play it.
As long as it is _clear_ from the get-go that customers behind NAT are
getting that service, and not publicly-routable IP space, I don't see the
problem. If they don't like it, they don't have to sign up to begin with - =
as
long as there is no doubt as to what kind of service they're getting, there
shouldn't be a problem (legally, at any rate).
This is not to say that if, as Eliot posits, the next Big Thing on the mark=
et
requires public IPs that your customer base won't all jump ship. That's a
risk that providers will have to weigh against the benefits of NAT.
> Eliot
--=20
Scott Francis darkuncle@ [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t
Systems/Network Manager sfrancis@ [work:] t o n o s . c o m
GPG public key 0xCB33CCA7 illum oportet crescere me autem minui
--jQIvE3yXcK9X9HBh
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org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=YQyC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--jQIvE3yXcK9X9HBh--
