[47261] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Large ISPs doing NAT?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Wed May 1 19:46:35 2002
Reply-To: <deepak@ai.net>
From: "Deepak Jain" <deepak@ai.net>
To: "Peter Bierman" <pmb+nanog@sfgoth.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Cc: "Beckmeyer" <beck@pacbell.net>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 19:44:49 -0400
Message-ID: <GPEOJKGHAMKFIOMAGMDIMEAKLGAA.deepak@ai.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <v0313030ab8f622f1da65@[17.202.21.231]>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I'm more concerned that if the major metropolitan markets deploying GPRS
all use NAT, then the Next Big Thing won't ever happen on GPRS devices.
Customers won't jump ship if they have no where to jump to. That might
sound attractive to the bean counters, but think of the customers you might
never get in the first place. Also, I don't see how deploying NAT could be
a cost savings over requesting real IP space.
-pmb
----
It certainly allows sloppy/generous/obtuse internal delegations. Some may
say that
saves time/management headache/whatever.
MY question is -- How do you know if a justification for _public_ space
handling a large NAT'd pool is the proper size and not an over/under
allocation based on the customer in question?
Deepak Jain
AiNET
