[47312] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Large ISPs doing NAT?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Bierman)
Thu May 2 05:27:06 2002
Message-Id: <v03130301b8f6b62b46fd@[17.202.21.231]>
In-Reply-To: <A44DA7EDD8262343B02C64AF7E063A07128459@kenya.ba.tronet.sk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 02:26:39 -0700
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Peter Bierman <pmb+nanog@sfgoth.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 11:15 AM +0200 5/2/02, Daniska Tomas wrote:
>
>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?
If no applications need the "few bucks more" service, no one will pay for it.
If no one pays for it, no one will write applications that need it.
Chicken or Egg? You decide.
-pmb
