Kysi, can you do us all a favor, and stop copying the IETF list on this stuff, I get enough e-mail with out getting additional stuff that #1I don't care about, #2 has nothing to do with why most of us signed up to participate in this group.
Best Regards, Alan
kysi ferul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
NAT would definitely serve a purpose for those wishing to not pay a fee for Intert addresseable address space. It would seem though that if one pays for Internet access this should in fact be included in the price.
"Evstiounin, Mikhail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wasn't avoiding NAT one of the
Valdis, I agree with you a hundred percent. The most
expensive part of infrastructure is pulling the
cables/fiber necessary to build the infrastrucuture.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:41:37 +0200, Anthony
> Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > If they are that lacking
AIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alan Simpkins wrote:
>
> > For some countries it
> > is more feasible for people to use mobile
> technology
>
> But better still is fixed-wireless, which can
> deliver bandwidth
> more cheaply, because you have more predictable
> s
I would tend to disagree, working for a
communications
company that specializes in working with
multinationals
and dealing with the associated infrastrucures in
foriegn countries I have found that in many countries
it is not financially feasible, nor geagraphically
feasible to try to create the
