[58916] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Suspected SPAM: NAT for an ISP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen J. Wilcox)
Thu Jun 5 06:06:37 2003
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:05:58 +0100 (BST)
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
To: "Muir, Ronald" <ronald.muir@xo.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, "Christopher J. Wolff" <chris@bblabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <3C8A2326BF44C742AE4AF92010DD4520CC2A93@VARESTVEXC002.mail.inthosts.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
This question appears to be as to whether the @home setup presented at nanog28
is a good idea rather than the usual 1918 on public links.
This is not uncommon for cable modem users etc
And yes, things will break like voip, vpns.. but I guess its up to the service
provider as to whether nat-only apps are considered supported or not. (There are
no violations of 1918 in this which is the usual topic along these lines.)
So is that it, thread done? :)
Steve
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Muir, Ronald wrote:
>
> It is about time for the semi annual RFC1918 rants. ;-(
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christopher J. Wolff [mailto:chris@bblabs.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:52 PM
> > To: nanog@merit.edu
> > Subject: Suspected SPAM: NAT for an ISP
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO
> > Broadband Laboratories, Inc.
> > http://www.bblabs.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
