nanog mailing list archives
Re: Fwd: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
From: Andy Walden <andy () tigerteam net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:05:33 -0600 (CST)
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Martin J. Levy wrote:
I got this forwarded to me. I'm not impressed. Based upon the general desire for providers to have NAT'ed users and to reduce IP-space usage where appropriate, does this make sense? I can understand the providers desire to increase revenue, but I don't believe this is a good way to do it.
Slashdot, the tabloid of the tech world. I believe if you read through all the comments no one ever came up with any proof of this and reading through Commcast's AUP doesn't reveal this policy either. I think it was largely trollbait. andy -- PGP Key Available at http://www.tigerteam.net/andy/pgp
Current thread:
- Fwd: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" Martin J. Levy (Jan 31)
- Re: Fwd: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" Andy Walden (Jan 31)
- [no subject] Jim Shankland (Jan 31)
- Re: your mail Andy Walden (Jan 31)
- Re: Fwd: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" William Allen Simpson (Jan 31)
- [no subject] Jim Shankland (Jan 31)
- Re: Fwd: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 31)
- RE: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" Daniel Golding (Jan 31)
- RE: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" Daniel Senie (Jan 31)
- Re: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" Jon Mansey (Jan 31)
- Re: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" Marc Pierrat (Jan 31)
- Re: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" Dan Hollis (Jan 31)
- Re: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" Keith Woodworth (Jan 31)
- Re: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" Marc Pierrat (Jan 31)
- Re: Fwd: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users" Andy Walden (Jan 31)