### On Thu, 2 May 2002 01:20:40 -0700, Scott Francis
### <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> casually decided to expound upon Peter Bierman
### <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]======================+
| Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | --------------- |
| for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| N E T W O R K S |
+=========================================================================*/
