nanog mailing list archives
Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
From: "Tony Rall" <trall () almaden ibm com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 10:59:16 -0700
On Monday, 2002-04-29 at 08:43 MST, Beckmeyer <beck () pacbell net> wrote:
Is anybody here doing NAT for their customers?
I hope not. If you're NATing your customers you're no longer an ISP. You're a sort-of-tcp-service-provider (maybe a little udp too). NAT (PAT even more so) breaks so many things that it would be unconscionable to advertise as an ISP. Even some tcp apps fail under NAT. The NAT box may include a number of "fix-ups" but such will never be equivalent to giving the customer a public address. An Internet Service Provider gives the customer a full connection to the Internet. All IP protocols should work. I'm in favor of using NAT only where there is a good argument for it and the customers are given the straight story about what they're buying and what it won't be able to do. Don't call yourself an ISP. Tony Rall
Current thread:
- Large ISPs doing NAT? Beckmeyer (Apr 29)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Marshall Eubanks (Apr 29)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Beckmeyer (Apr 29)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Marshall Eubanks (Apr 29)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? David Conrad (Apr 29)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Bill Woodcock (Apr 30)
- RE: Large ISPs doing NAT? Daniska Tomas (Apr 29)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Tony Rall (Apr 30)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino (Apr 30)
- RE: Large ISPs doing NAT? Daniska Tomas (Apr 30)
- RE: Large ISPs doing NAT? kevin graham (Apr 30)