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 add
>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 w
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 should
> 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,
BENCHMARK SUPPLY
5334 LAKE VIEW CLUB
ATLANTA GA 30338
***LASER PRINTER TONER CARTRIDGES***
***FAX AND COPIER TONER***
WE ACCEPT GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL & UNIVERSITY PURCHASE ORDERS
JUST LEAVE YOUR PO # WITH CORRECT BILLING & SHIPPING ADDRESS
CHECK OUT OUR NEW CARTRIDGE PRICES :
APPLE
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 c
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
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 Syste
> 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
translatio
>> 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 add
At 11:44 PM 4/23/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>I wonder...how many of these folks really want network address
>translation, versus those who just want the other things that
>NAT boxes often do? (DHCP, firewall, hub, router, all with
>really easy setup)
I'm not a valid statistical sampling, j
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 ve
Maybe we need to help make it easy to GET assignments of blocks of addresses
for individuals/small businesses/etc. Part of the problem is the obvious:
IPv4 addresses are running short. Part is the "K-Mart" level of product
understanding I've experienced with many vendors of Internet connectivity
15 matches
Mail list logo
