On Fri, 3 May 2002, Avleen Vig wrote:
Ha! I've been in Burbank (in the Valley north of LA) for 7 months now, I
moved here from London. I've looked and looked and looked for *ANYTHING*
other than the odd gas station or supermarket open passed 9pm!
??
Plenty of gas stations around here open
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 05:09:15PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
Mobile-IP devices are all about bringing the Internet to your pocket. That
doesn't mean just the web! The web is UI optimized for a desktop machine.
Who knows what specific applications might be developed for a user
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 04:44:28PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
At 01:20 AM 5/2/2002 -0700, Scott Francis wrote:
The average customer buying a web-enabled phone doesn't need a
publicly-routeable IP. I challenge anybody to demonstrate why a cell phone
needs a public IP. It's a PHONE, not a
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 04:56:40PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
I'm not buying a phone I can't run ssh from. End of story. My current phone
does all that and more. Why step back into the dark ages of analog-type
services?
The average customer doesn't even know what telnet is,
by blowing first.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 3. mája 2002 9:13
To: Dan Hollis
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 04:56:40PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said: [snip]
I'm not buying a phone
A NAT'd cell phone
wont, cant ever, respond to an unsolicited connection request.
A NAT is not a firewall.
A firewall is not a NAT.
Some vendors bundle firewall functionality with NAT functionality, just as
some vendors bundle SNA with IP.
Please stop perpetuating the myth that a
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:29:32AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, 03 May 2002 00:12:34 PDT, Scott Francis said:
Your phone can surf porn? Maybe the technology revolution has finally arriv=
ed
after all ...
No, it's still in the dancing bear stage. There's the question of
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Scott Francis wrote:
that is an excellent idea. I know one thing I would LOVE to have is a search
engine that can answer my question, Where can I find a coffee house
{optionally: with 802.11b} open after midnight during the week in Los
Angeles {optionally: the Valley}?
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 12:11:33PM -0700, Rowland, Alan D wrote:
You would think the phone companies who already have most of the necessary
resources, i.e. the yellow pages/directory listings, would be all over this
idea as a way to sell thier device/generate even more listing revenue.
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:07:34PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
As long as it is _clear_ from the get-go that customers behind NAT are
getting that service, and not publicly-routable IP space, I don't see the
problem. If they don't like it, they don't have to sign up to begin with -
### 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
-Original Message-
From: Jake Khuon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 2. mája 2002 10:32
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
Time to start thinking a little further down the line. What
if the phone actually becomes an wireless IP gateway router
### On Thu, 2 May 2002 10:42:01 +0200, Daniska Tomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
### casually decided to expound upon [EMAIL PROTECTED] the following
### thoughts about RE: Large ISPs doing NAT? :
DT and what if one of the devices behind that phone would also be a personal
DT ip gateway router (or how
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 01:32:16AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
### 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
-Original Message-
From: Jake Khuon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 2. mája 2002 10:51
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
DT and what if one of the devices behind that phone would also be a
DT personal ip gateway router (or how you call that)... you
At 1:20 AM -0700 5/2/02, Scott Francis wrote:
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:07:34PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You've got to be kidding. Do you think it's clear to the average consumer
buying a GPRS phone what NAT is, and why they might or might not want it?
The average customer buying a
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 -
### On Thu, 2 May 2002 11:15:00 +0200, Daniska Tomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
### casually decided to expound upon [EMAIL PROTECTED] the following
### thoughts about RE: Large ISPs doing NAT? :
DT you will end up with exactly two exactly specified services... not that
DT bad, is it?
Nope
On Thu, 02 May 2002 01:50:50 PDT, Jake Khuon [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
God forbid! We might have a network on our hands!
That's called wearable computing. And it goes in your pocket so your
hands are free, ;)
msg01377/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
through firewalls.
Jm
-Original Message-
From: Jake Khuon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 1:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
### On Thu, 2 May 2002 10:42:01 +0200, Daniska Tomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ### casually decided
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: DDOS attacks and Large ISPs doing NAT?
To merge these 2 great threads, it is the case is it not that
NAT is a great way to avoid DDOS problems. I don't even want
to imagine what the billing/credit issues would be like if
your always-on phone with a real IP
AM
Subject: RE: DDOS attacks and Large ISPs doing NAT?
To merge these 2 great threads, it is the case is it not that NAT is a great
way to avoid DDOS problems. I don't even want to imagine what the
billing/credit issues would be like if your always-on phone with a real IP
is used as a zombie
.
GPRS VoIP (yet)
Jm
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:26 AM
To: Mansey, Jon
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DDOS attacks and Large ISPs doing NAT?
On Thu, 02 May 2002 11:06:33 PDT, Mansey, Jon said
-Original Message-
From: Gary E. Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 2. mája 2002 20:00
To: Mansey, Jon
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: DDOS attacks and Large ISPs doing NAT?
Who says a NATed host can not be a zombie? Get the NATed
host to read an email virus
On Thu, 02 May 2002 11:32:48 PDT, Mansey, Jon said:
As I said, in a NAT'd scenario the IP stack will never see an unsolicited
request and hence not respond to it.
The phone side of course will ring when called. Duh.
That's the *point*.
You hand the phone a trojan/virus/whatever when it's
On Wed, 1 May 2002 11:00:01 -0400 (EDT)
mike harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Almost? I'd say it's hands down an EXCELLENT reason. In some configs
though, the NAT'd people can still see each other and cause problems,
but it still cuts down the exposure.
As well as perpetuates the neglect
On Thu, 2 May 2002 15:40:57 -0400 Bradley Dunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some vendors bundle firewall functionality with NAT functionality, just
as
some vendors bundle SNA with IP.
some vendors actually sell NAT devices that say firewall on the outside
of the box.
richard
--
At 01:20 AM 5/2/2002 -0700, Scott Francis wrote:
The average customer buying a web-enabled phone doesn't need a
publicly-routeable IP. I challenge anybody to demonstrate why a cell phone
needs a public IP. It's a PHONE, not a server.
I'm not buying a phone I can't run ssh from. End of story.
At 11:34 AM -0700 5/2/02, Scott Francis wrote:
And what if I want to invent the next big thing? A game, that people play
in real time, with their palm-sized gizmo. What if that game can't be made
scalable unless those devices have real IPs? What if that game is the
catalyst that causes a
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Jake Khuon wrote:
Time to start thinking a little further down the line. What if the phone
actually becomes an wireless IP gateway router?
Yuck. Current WAP-based phones can't even do websites well.
I've not been privy to 3G tests, so I don't know if GPRS/CDMA 1x does
I don't know if this is an annual argument yet, but the frog is in the
pot, and the flame is on. Guess who's playing the part of the frog?
Answer: ISPs who do this sort of thing. Value added security is a nice
thing. Crippling Internet connections will turn the Internet into the
phone
On Wed, 01 May 2002 14:55:02 PDT, Eliot Lear said:
some access-lists. Just make sure that when that next really fun game is
delivered on a play station that speaka de IP your customers can play it,
and that you haven't built a business model around them not being able to
play it.
There
At 3:03 PM -0700 5/1/02, Scott Francis wrote:
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 02:55:02PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I don't know if this is an annual argument yet, but the frog is in the
pot, and the flame is on. Guess who's playing the part of the frog?
Answer: ISPs who do this sort of thing.
I think a lot of the GRPS stuff is heading towards IPv6 w/IPv4
gatewaying.
The NAT issue has certainly resulted in a quite a few disgruntled
satellite customers (I'm thinking here primarily of direcpc.com) who're
willing to put up with the large latencies, but get really irate when
their apps
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
I'm more concerned that if the major metropolitan markets deploying GPRS
all use NAT, then the Next Big Thing won't ever happen on GPRS devices.
Customers won't jump ship if they have no where to jump to.
The only people who'd be deploying GPRS are GSM
On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 10:33 , Steven J. Sobol wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
I'm more concerned that if the major metropolitan markets deploying
GPRS
all use NAT, then the Next Big Thing won't ever happen on GPRS devices.
Customers won't jump ship if they have no
It's a lack of IP Address Space - and the numbers I gave - 10's of
thousands are probably a bit on the small side - in short order it will
be multiples of 100,000 IP addresses.
That's a small quantity. Just fill our your RIR's form, and if you need
the space, you'll get it.
On Monday, 2002-04-29 at 08:43 MST, Beckmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is anybody here doing NAT for their customers?
I hope not.
If you're NATing your customers you're no longer an ISP. You're a
sort-of-tcp-service-provider (maybe a little udp too). NAT (PAT even more
so) breaks so many
-Original Message-
From: Tony Rall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 30. apríla 2002 19:59
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
On Monday, 2002-04-29 at 08:43 MST, Beckmeyer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is anybody here doing NAT for their customers
On Monday, 2002-04-29 at 08:43 MST, Beckmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is anybody here doing NAT for their customers?
Tony Rall:
If you're NATing your customers you're no longer an ISP. You're a
sort-of-tcp-service-provider (maybe a little udp too). NAT (PAT even more
Depends on scale
Is anybody here doing NAT for their customers?
I'm looking at a situation where I may have to provide NAPT for tens of
thousands of users and am curious as to what hardware is being used, how
well it scales, what kind of loads it takes such as:
throughput,
max simultaneous sessions
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:43:11 -0700
Beckmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is anybody here doing NAT for their customers?
I'm looking at a situation where I may have to provide
NAPT for tens of
thousands of users and am curious as to what hardware is
being used, how
well it scales, what
Marshall et al,
It's a lack of IP Address Space - and the numbers I gave - 10's of
thousands are probably a bit on the small side - in short order it will
be multiples of 100,000 IP addresses. To start with, I'm willing to
think in terms of 10's of thousands spread over a handful of POPs.
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:08:16 -0700
Beckmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marshall et al,
Dear JB;
1.) Dare I suggest that you use IPv6 ? It should make a
great NAT.
2.) If you are interested in having content put on your
wireless devices I would like to talk off line.
Regards
Marshall
44 matches
Mail list logo
