On Apr 20, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Joe Greco wrote: >> In message <201004200022.o3k0m2ba007...@aurora.sol.net>, Joe Greco writes: >>>> That'd be easy if you were just starting up an ISP. What do you do with >>>> your existing customer base? If their current service includes a >>>> dynamic public IPv4 address, you can't gracefully take it away, without >>>> likey violating services T&Cs, government telco regulations etc. So >>>> you'll have to go through a formal process of getting agreement with >>>> customers to take them away. >>> >>> I haven't seen any such documents or regulations. >> >> People purchaced the service on the understanding that they would >> get a Internet address. A address behind a NAT is not a Internet >> address, it's a *shared* Internet address which is a very different >> thing. > > People purchase mobile Internet service and get placed behind > carrier NAT. People get free Internet at hotels and are almost > always behind a NAT. The terminology war is lost. > Most hotels I have stayed in recently have a "Upgrade to public IP" button which I routinely use. I have never encountered an additional charge for that public IP.
>>> Many/most people are _already_ behind a NAT gateway. >> >> They are behind NAT44 which they deployed themselves and control >> the configuration of themselves. They can direct incoming traffic >> as they see fit. They are NOT restricted to UDP and TCP. >> >> NAT444 is a different kettle of fish. There are lots of things >> that you do with a NAT44 that you can't do with a NAT444. >> >> If all you do is browse the web and read email then you won't see >> the much of a difference. If you do anything more complicated than >> making outgoing queries you will see the difference. > > You *might* see the difference. You might not, too. > > And hey, just so we're clear here, I would *agree* that Internet access > ought to mean an actual IP address with as little filtering, etc., as > reasonable... but we're exploring what happens at exhaustion here. So > I'm not interested in arguing this point; the fact of the matter is that > we WILL hit exhaustion, and it's going to be a hell of an operational > issue the day your subscribers cannot get an IP from the DHCP server > because they're all allocated and in use. > The good news is that in IPv6, it probably will mean that again. Owen
