nanog mailing list archives
Re: Allocation of IP Addresses
From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso () cisco com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 13:39:54 -0500
At 09:36 AM 3/14/96 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
Why not use net 10 and leave the NATs in?You can't possibly be serious here. No way NATs scale to multihomed, and they don't speak BGP. They aren't heavy-duty backbone routers. They're designed for small to medium sized corporate LANs, not ISP's.
Owen, you're assuming that what is currently the case will continue to hold true. - paul
Current thread:
- Re: Allocation of IP Addresses, (continued)
- Re: Allocation of IP Addresses Paul Ferguson (Mar 14)
- Re: Allocation of IP Addresses Paul Ferguson (Mar 14)
- Re: Allocation of IP Addresses Perry E. Metzger (Mar 14)
- Re: Allocation of IP Addresses Barry Shein (Mar 14)
- Re: Allocation of IP Addresses Perry E. Metzger (Mar 14)
- Re: Allocation of IP Addresses Kevin Oberman (Mar 15)
- Re: Allocation of IP Addresses Perry E. Metzger (Mar 15)
- Re: Allocation of IP Addresses Perry E. Metzger (Mar 14)
- Re: Allocation of IP Addresses Ronald Barron Yokubaitis (Mar 17)
- Re: Allocation of IP Addresses Gordon Cook (Mar 14)
- Re: Allocation of IP Addresses David R. Conrad (Mar 14)
- Re: Allocation of IP Addresses Gordon Cook (Mar 14)
- RE: Allocation of IP Addresses Barry James (Mar 15)