North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?

  • From: Michael Painter
  • Date: Wed May 01 20:22:26 2002

Roland, 

I have a static IP w/DirecPC and I haven't noticed any problems running ICS on Win2K.  Have things changed?

--Michael


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roland Dobbins" <mordant@gothik.org>
To: "Peter Bierman" <pmb@sfgoth.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>; "Beckmeyer" <beck@pacbell.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?


> 
> I think a lot of the GRPS stuff is heading towards IPv6 w/IPv4
> gatewaying.
> 
> The NAT issue has certainly resulted in a quite a few disgruntled
> satellite customers (I'm thinking here primarily of direcpc.com) who're
> willing to put up with the large latencies, but get really irate when
> their apps won't work via NAT, or who want to run RFC1918 space for a
> LAN at home, then find out that lots of stuff can't stand being NATted
> twice.
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <mordant@gothik.org> // 650.776.1024 voice
> 
> "Central databases already exist. Privacy is already gone." 
> 
>      -- Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle Corporation
> 
> On Wed, 2002-05-01 at 16:07, Peter Bierman wrote:
> > 
> > At 3:03 PM -0700 5/1/02, Scott Francis wrote:
> > >On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 02:55:02PM -0700, lear@cisco.com said:
> > >>
> > >> I don't know if this is an annual argument yet, but the frog is in the
> > >> pot, and the flame is on.  Guess who's playing the part of the frog?
> > >> Answer: ISPs who do this sort of thing.  Value added security is a nice
> > >> thing.  Crippling Internet connections will turn the Internet into the
> > >> phone company, where only the ISP gets to say what services are good and
> > >> which ones are bad.  While an ISP might view it appealing to be a baby
> > >> bell, remember from whence we all come: the notion that the middle should
> > >> not inhibit the endpoints from doing what they want.  You find this to be
> > >> a support headache?  Offer a deal on Norton Internet Security or some
> > >> such.  Offer to do rules merges.  Even offer a provisioning interface to
> > >> some access-lists.  Just make sure that when that next really fun game is
> > >> delivered on a play station that speaka de IP your customers can play it,
> > >> and that you haven't built a business model around them not being able to
> > >> play it.
> > >
> > >As long as it is _clear_ from the get-go that customers behind NAT are
> > >getting that service, and not publicly-routable IP space, I don't see the
> > >problem. If they don't like it, they don't have to sign up to begin with - as
> > >long as there is no doubt as to what kind of service they're getting, there
> > >shouldn't be a problem (legally, at any rate).
> > 
> > 
> > You've got to be kidding. Do you think it's clear to the average consumer
> > buying a GPRS phone what NAT is, and why they might or might not want it?
> > Do you think the use of NAT will be explained to these customers? Or
> > clearly stated in 5pt text on page 17 of the service agreement?
> > 
> > IMHO, as one of the people who will likely be using Cingular's GPRS network
> > with a Danger HipTop, I _strongly_ hope they choose to use routable address
> > space instead of NAT. I would hate for NAT to be an impediment to some cool
> > new app no one has thought of yet because these gizmos aren't in widespread
> > use yet.
> > 
> > >This is not to say that if, as Eliot posits, the next Big Thing on the market
> > >requires public IPs that your customer base won't all jump ship. That's a
> > >risk that providers will have to weigh against the benefits of NAT.
> > 
> > I'm more concerned that if the major metropolitan markets deploying GPRS
> > all use NAT, then the Next Big Thing won't ever happen on GPRS devices.
> > Customers won't jump ship if they have no where to jump to. That might
> > sound attractive to the bean counters, but think of the customers you might
> > never get in the first place. Also, I don't see how deploying NAT could be
> > a cost savings over requesting real IP space.
> > 
> > -pmb
> > 
> > --
> > Ring around the Internet, | Peter Bierman <pmb@sfgoth.com>
> > Packet with a bit not set | http://www.sfgoth.com/pmb/
> > SYN ACK SYN ACK,          |"Nobody realizes that some people expend
> > We all go down. -A. Stern | tremendous energy merely to be normal."-Al Camus
> > 
> 
>