[47302] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jake Khuon)
Thu May 2 04:33:47 2002
Message-Id: <200205020832.g428WGPn014631@wooj.com>
From: "Jake Khuon" <khuon@NEEBU.Net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Scott Francis's message of Thu, 02 May 2002 01:20:40 -0700.
<20020502082039.GB1156@darkuncle.net>
Reply-To: khuon@NEEBU.Net (Jake Khuon)
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 01:32:16 -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
### On Thu, 2 May 2002 01:20:40 -0700, Scott Francis
### <darkuncle@darkuncle.net> casually decided to expound upon Peter Bierman
### <pmb+nanog@sfgoth.com> the following thoughts about "Re: Large ISPs
### doing NAT?":
SF> The average customer buying a "web-enabled" phone doesn't need a
SF> publicly-routeable IP. I challenge anybody to demonstrate why a cell phone
SF> needs a public IP. It's a PHONE, not a server.
Time to start thinking a little further down the line. What if the phone
actually becomes an wireless IP gateway router? It routes packets from a
PAN (personal area network) riding on top of Bluetooth or 802.11{a,b} to the
3G network for transit. NAT would certainly become very messy.
--
/*===================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@NEEBU.Net> ]======================+
| Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | --------------- |
| for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| N E T W O R K S |
+=========================================================================*/
