> * Nick Hilliard: > > > On 19/04/2010 16:14, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote: > >> The eyeball ISPs will find it trivial to NAT should they ever need to do > >> so [...] > > > Having made this bold claim, have you ever actually tried to run a natted > > eyeball network? The last two natted eyeball networks I worked with could > > never figure out which aspect of NAT hurt more: the technical side or the > > business side. > > I'm pretty sure the acceptance of NAT varies regionally. I think > there's a large ISP in Italy which has been doing NAT since the 90s. > So it's not just the mobile domain. > > It can be tricky to introduce a new NATted product and compete with > established players which do not NAT, though.
It's another opportunity to monetize things. Give people the option of a "real" IP address for $5 extra a month in case they actually need it for gaming, etc., and default Grandma's average everyday connection to NAT. The eyeball ISP's definitely have the easier end of things. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
