nanog mailing list archives
RE: Large ISPs doing NAT?
From: Peter Bierman <pmb+nanog () sfgoth com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 02:26:39 -0700
At 11:15 AM +0200 5/2/02, Daniska Tomas wrote:
no eye-shutting. it's just about considering HOW MANY (or WHAT PART) of your users will need the 'full' service. if you have 95% of bfu's with web+mail phones or pda's then nat is completely ok for them. and those 5% (if so many ever) phreaks - give them an opportunity to have public ip with no nat for a few bucks more you will end up with exactly two exactly specified services... not that bad, is it?
If no applications need the "few bucks more" service, no one will pay for it. If no one pays for it, no one will write applications that need it. Chicken or Egg? You decide. -pmb
Current thread:
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?, (continued)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Valdis . Kletnieks (May 01)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Valdis . Kletnieks (May 01)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? mike harrison (May 01)
- RE: Large ISPs doing NAT? Deepak Jain (May 01)
- RE: Large ISPs doing NAT? kevin graham (May 01)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? John Kristoff (May 02)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? mike harrison (May 01)
- RE: Large ISPs doing NAT? Daniska Tomas (May 02)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Jake Khuon (May 02)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Valdis . Kletnieks (May 02)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Jake Khuon (May 02)
- RE: Large ISPs doing NAT? Daniska Tomas (May 02)
- RE: Large ISPs doing NAT? Peter Bierman (May 02)
- Re: Large ISPs doing NAT? Jake Khuon (May 02)
- RE: Large ISPs doing NAT? Mansey, Jon (May 02)
- Re[2]: Large ISPs doing NAT? Richard Welty (May 02)
- RE: Large ISPs doing NAT? Daniska Tomas (May 03)