[58913] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAT for an ISP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mans Nilsson)
Thu Jun 5 01:34:08 2003
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 07:32:36 +0200
From: Mans Nilsson <mansaxel@sunet.se>
To: "Christopher J. Wolff" <chris@bblabs.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <004101c32ad2$be283270$1809d440@CPQ28623125852>
X-synced-from: Pilsnet
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--Sr1nOIr3CvdE5hEN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: NAT for an ISP Date: Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 12:51:51PM -0700 Quoting=
Christopher J. Wolff (chris@bblabs.com):
>=20
> Hello,
>=20
> I would like to know if any service providers have built their access
> networks out using private IP space. It certainly would benefit the
> global IP pool but it may adversely affect users with special
> applications. At any rate, it sounds like good fodder for a debate.
Those who use 1918 space are apparently not interested in communicating
with the Internet. I regard this as grossly off-topic for NANOG.
Granted; there might be some ratification for 1918 space in OOB or
control plane networks, but on customer-facing interfaces it is a
no-no, and should be discouraged with some vengeance.
If somebody were trying to sell me a NATed connection and calling
it "Internet connectivity" I'd talk to the proper government authority
about fradulent behaviour.
--=20
M=E5ns Nilsson Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC
MN1334-RIPE
I want to perform cranial activities with Tuesday Weld!!
--Sr1nOIr3CvdE5hEN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQE+3tX002/pMZDM1cURAuWpAJ9khN3HTYQD89+bdGc71j06HOXffwCeOnwW
6h3O7l7nXJmz/o6orzYODjM=
=GM2V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Sr1nOIr3CvdE5hEN--
