[7878] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Big providers use NAT to squeeze little ISPs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lyndon Levesley)
Wed Feb 26 22:11:27 1997
To: Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
Reply-to: lyndon@xara.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:31:28 CST."
<199702270131.TAA22918@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 01:59:58 +0000
From: Lyndon Levesley <lol@xara.net>
Karl Denninger wrote :
|-> > I will restart my question as such:
|-> >
|-> > It is my understanding that;
|-> >
|-> > One of your principal objections to NAT boxes is that they are
|-> > motivated by technical and trade practices you find dishonest.
|-> >
|-> > Please define and expound.
|->
|-> My principal objection to NAT is that it breaks lots of things, including
|-> some servers, that customers want to put on their networks.
|->
|-> At the PROVIDER level, especially at the level we run at, there is no NAT
|-> box made fast enough to do the job regardless of price.
|->
Not true. I doubt that your links comprise much more than 100Mb or so
(which the existing PIX does OK) and you could certainly make
something like a fast PC perform NAT at *lots* of pps or Kbps.
The only thing with NAT is that you need some memory, but again, the
PIX has a limit of ~16,000 *simultaneous* conversations and doesn't
have much RAM to play with.
|-> > Do you really think that big ISP puts in /19 filters to make life
|-> > hard for the "little guy" at the bottom of the "money pile"?
|-> >
|-> > -alan
|->
|-> As long as a provider can get their own /19 I have no problem with
|-> prefix filtering at the /19 level.
|->
|-> The problem comes about when big ISPs filter at /19s *AND* the allocators
|-> of space refuse to give ISPs /19s.
|->
I've had a wonderful time...
...but this wasn't it.
