[47310] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Large ISPs doing NAT?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniska Tomas)
Thu May 2 05:16:41 2002
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 11:15:00 +0200
Message-ID: <A44DA7EDD8262343B02C64AF7E063A07128459@kenya.ba.tronet.sk>
From: "Daniska Tomas" <tomas@tronet.com>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jake Khuon [mailto:khuon@NEEBU.Net]=20
> Sent: 2. m=E1ja 2002 10:51
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?=20
>=20
>=20
> DT> and what if one of the devices behind that phone would also be a=20
> DT> personal "ip gateway router" (or how you call that)... you could=20
> DT> recursively iterate as deep as your mail size allows you to...
>=20
> It's possible. Could it get ugly? Yes. Do we just want to=20
> shut our eyes and say "let's not go there."... well... maybe.=20
> I just don't think the solution is to say, "this can never=20
> happen... we must limit all handheld devices to sitting=20
> behind a NAT gateway."
>=20
=20
no eye-shutting. it's just about considering HOW MANY (or WHAT PART) of =
your users will need the 'full' service. if you have 95% of bfu's with =
web+mail phones or pda's then nat is completely ok for them. and those =
5% (if so many ever) phreaks - give them an opportunity to have public =
ip with no nat for a few bucks more
you will end up with exactly two exactly specified services... not that =
bad, is it?
--
=20
Tomas Daniska
systems engineer
Tronet Computer Networks
Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia
tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199
=20
A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by =
blowing first.
