RE: Suspected SPAM: NAT for an ISP

["Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>]

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