Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?

[Scott Francis <darkuncle () darkuncle net>]

On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:07:34PM -0700, pmb+nanog () sfgoth com said:
[snip]
> > 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?

The average customer buying a "web-enabled" phone doesn't need a
publicly-routeable IP. I challenge anybody to demonstrate why a cell phone
needs a public IP. It's a PHONE, not a server.

> 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?

There's enough other fine print that adding this in somewhere should not be
an issue.

> 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.

I am totally in favor of public IPs being an _option_ for use with PDAs,
phones and the like - but for the average user, I do not see it being a
necessity, or even really a benefit.

> > 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.

I'm not saying it's the best course of action necessarily; I was trying to
make the "best tool for the job" argument. There are cases where NAT is a
definite advantage, or where having a public IP offers no clear benefits, if
not any obvious risks. Until the model changes drastically, I just don't see
the average phone/wireless PDA user needing a public IP for every device
she/he has. But it should definitely remain an option - just like static IPs
on DSL is an option with most providers.

> -pmb

-- 
Scott Francis                   darkuncle@ [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t
Systems/Network Manager          sfrancis@ [work:]         t o n o s . c o m
GPG public key 0xCB33CCA7              illum oportet crescere me autem minui

Attachment: _bin
Description: