Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?

["Jake Khuon" <khuon () NEEBU Net>]

### On Thu, 2 May 2002 01:20:40 -0700, Scott Francis
### <darkuncle () darkuncle net> casually decided to expound upon Peter Bierman
### <pmb+nanog () sfgoth com> the following thoughts about "Re: Large ISPs
### doing NAT?":

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

Time to start thinking a little further down the line.  What if the phone
actually becomes an wireless IP gateway router?  It routes packets from a
PAN (personal area network) riding on top of Bluetooth or 802.11{a,b} to the
3G network for transit.  NAT would certainly become very messy.


--
/*===================[ Jake Khuon <khuon () NEEBU Net> ]======================+
 | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers     /| / [~ [~ |) | | --------------- |
 | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation  / |/  [_ [_ |) |_| N E T W O R K S |
 +=========================================================================*/