On 2008-08-01 04:00, Alan DeKok wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I don't understand why a customer using Net 10 can't be NATted (at the CPE)
>> into an ISP using Net 10. Since NATs completely separate two address
>> realms, I can't see any reason this would work any differently than
>> by inventing Net10bis.
>
> The same thing happens when companies buy other companies. The worst
> I've seen (so far) is 3 layers of NAT, all using Net 10. It works, and
> it plays hob with equipment trying to have "internal" IP addresses. But
> hacking selected server equipment is usually cheaper than changing
> hundreds of switches and thousands of end hosts.
>From Shin's answer, it seems that many cheap CPE NATs are broken
in this respect.
However, an ISP that already has a /8 could use it twice in Shin's
scheme, I think, with the CGN between the two instantiations. I don't
see that as more risky than defining a new 'Net 10'. In either case,
leakage has to be prevented by configuration, but in the case I suggest,
the ISP causing a leakage would be the only one to suffer.
Brian
Brian
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
