The problem is not NAT's. The problem is why people have to use
NAT's...they can't get the numbers they need or want, in large measure, due
to the greed of ISP's.
That is a huge generalisation. The ISP I work for offers customers as
many IP numbers as they can justify and at no
they can't get the numbers they need or want, in large measure, due
to the greed of ISPs.
Rather than demonizing ISPs, it's more worthwhile to take
some time to stand in their shoes. Back in the mid '90s,
we faced these same issues in provisioning of small office/home
offices. It was generally
henning,
good stuff...
people would do well to read this -
also, all attempts to fix NATs so as to ameliorate these problems
have _exactly_ the same deployment complexity as IPv6 - there's a
quote somewhere from yakov rehkter to this effect (can't find it
exactly, but he was coming the ther
To combine the two long-running threads: The solution to the NAT problem
is obvious - we need a submarine patent where somebody claims rights to
NATs and then charges so much for licensing that it makes technically
more sound solutions, say, IPv6, economically attractive. Indeed, I
think we
From: Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To combine the two long-running threads: The solution to the NAT problem
is obvious - we need a submarine patent where somebody claims rights to
NATs and then charges so much for licensing that it makes technically
more sound solutions, say, IPv6,
At 02:10 PM 4/22/00, Keith Moore wrote:
Look, I have on my disk a file from June, 1992 (yes, that's not a typo -
*1992*) called "Problems with NAT".
This is probably a naive viewpoint but I have always viewed NAT as a hack
that would allow us to continue to use 32bit addresses until we
Bernard Aboba writes:
Rather than demonizing ISPs, it's more worthwhile to take
some time to stand in their shoes. Back in the mid '90s,
we faced these same issues in provisioning of small office/home
offices. It was generally much easier (and less expensive from
an administrative point of
Hello everyone,
My name is Mohammad Ozair Rasheed. I joined this list a few days back in
hope of understanding various protocol issues present in this forum. Here is
a brief look at me.
I am from Pakistan and work for a software house at the city of Lahore
(www.cres-tech.com) as the Senior
Most users are not
networking geeks. They like NAT because NAT boxes make what they want
to do so easy.
presumably they don't realize that the NATs are making it hard
to do other things that they might want to do.
I wonder...how many of these folks really want network address
translation,
Most users are not networking geeks. They like NAT because NAT boxes
make what they want to do so easy.
presumably they don't realize that the NATs are making it hard
to do other things that they might want to do.
I wonder...how many of these folks really want network address
Most users are not
networking geeks. They like NAT because NAT boxes make what they want
to do so easy.
presumably they don't realize that the NATs are making it hard
to do other things that they might want to do.
I wonder...how many of these folks really want network address
At 11:50 PM 4/22/2000 -0400, vinton g. cerf wrote:
big smile - vBNS+ is running IPv6 on a commercial basis. I'd be more than
interested in
your opinion of a sensible (acceptable) policy on the minimum size of IPv6
space one might expect
to allocate to customers.
Vint
Well that is a very
12 matches
Mail list logo
