[47384] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Francis)
Fri May 3 03:12:29 2002
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 00:10:02 -0700
From: Scott Francis <darkuncle@darkuncle.net>
To: Peter Bierman <pmb+nanog@sfgoth.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20020503071002.GB10647@darkuncle.net>
Mail-Followup-To: Scott Francis <darkuncle@darkuncle.net>,
Peter Bierman <pmb+nanog@sfgoth.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="p4qYPpj5QlsIQJ0K"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <v03130308b8f7811aa6ed@[17.202.21.231]>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--p4qYPpj5QlsIQJ0K
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 05:09:15PM -0700, pmb+nanog@sfgoth.com said:
[snip]
> Mobile-IP devices are all about bringing the Internet to your pocket. That
> doesn't mean just the web! The web is UI optimized for a desktop machine.
> Who knows what specific applications might be developed for a user
> accessing the Internet from a device the size of a bar of soap? What if I
> want to write CUSeeMe for mobile phones? Or a scavanger hunt game?
> Something that takes advantage of the mobility rarely found by a desktop
> user?
>=20
> It is these _form factor specific_ applications that will drive the sales
> of devices that utilize this new network. Surfing the web is just the tip
> of the iceberg that everyone already understands. If that's the only
> application enabled by GPRS, then I don't forsee GPRS phones selling in
> leaps and bounds. It seems like providers would be spending a whole lot of
> money to upgrade their network for just one new application that only a f=
ew
> customers are asking for.
Good points here. I think sometimes we miss the future direction and
possibilities that technology may take in our focus on making things work in
the present.
> The presumption of the first several responders was that it was to conser=
ve
> addresses, which they pointed out is not actually necessary. I'm hoping
> that was the case, and that maybe the choice of NAT can be revisited...
As I wrote to another poster, it's possible that I may have been too quick =
to
jump on the conservation bandwagon. I was directed to
http://www.caida.org/outreach/resources/learn/ipv4space/ which, although
possibly dated, shows that plenty of space is available. Whether or not this
is easily assigned/accessible space is something else. I think merely
reclaiming some of the legacy A blocks assigned years ago that are being us=
ed
sparsely, if at all, would eliminate any lingering doubts about space, at
least for the time being. The chances of companies giving up their unused
blocks, or trading for smaller ones, is probably pretty slim though.
> -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
--p4qYPpj5QlsIQJ0K
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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=59Tk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--p4qYPpj5QlsIQJ0K--
