[47301] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Francis)
Thu May 2 04:22:42 2002
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 01:20:40 -0700
From: Scott Francis <darkuncle@darkuncle.net>
To: Peter Bierman <pmb+nanog@sfgoth.com>
Message-ID: <20020502082039.GB1156@darkuncle.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gatW/ieO32f1wygP"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <v0313030ab8f622f1da65@[17.202.21.231]>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--gatW/ieO32f1wygP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:07:34PM -0700, pmb+nanog@sfgoth.com said:
[snip]
> >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, th=
ere
> >shouldn't be a problem (legally, at any rate).
>=20
> You've got to be kidding. Do you think it's clear to the average consumer
> buying a GPRS phone what NAT is, and why they might or might not want it?
The average customer buying a "web-enabled" phone doesn't need a
publicly-routeable IP. I challenge anybody to demonstrate why a cell phone
needs a public IP. It's a PHONE, not a server.
> Do you think the use of NAT will be explained to these customers? Or
> clearly stated in 5pt text on page 17 of the service agreement?
There's enough other fine print that adding this in somewhere should not be
an issue.
> IMHO, as one of the people who will likely be using Cingular's GPRS netwo=
rk
> with a Danger HipTop, I _strongly_ hope they choose to use routable addre=
ss
> space instead of NAT. I would hate for NAT to be an impediment to some co=
ol
> new app no one has thought of yet because these gizmos aren't in widespre=
ad
> use yet.
I am totally in favor of public IPs being an _option_ for use with PDAs,
phones and the like - but for the average user, I do not see it being a
necessity, or even really a benefit.
> >This is not to say that if, as Eliot posits, the next Big Thing on the m=
arket
> >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.
>=20
> 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 mig=
ht
> never get in the first place. Also, I don't see how deploying NAT could be
> a cost savings over requesting real IP space.
I'm not saying it's the best course of action necessarily; I was trying to
make the "best tool for the job" argument. There are cases where NAT is a
definite advantage, or where having a public IP offers no clear benefits, if
not any obvious risks. Until the model changes drastically, I just don't see
the average phone/wireless PDA user needing a public IP for every device
she/he has. But it should definitely remain an option - just like static IPs
on DSL is an option with most providers.
> -pmb
--=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
--gatW/ieO32f1wygP
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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=SQA5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--gatW/ieO32f1wygP--
