and then you have those 'pdp-contexts' or how they call it. it's just another acronym for a vpn... if a corporate user requires full ip connectivity then why not give him a vpn uplink directly to their hq
This is probably impractical -- just try to (consistently) get your DSL provider to provision multiple PVC's. Technology that's there, been there, and makes alot of sense, but convincing someone to sell it is still difficiult.
An Internet Service Provider gives the customer a full connection to the Internet. All IP protocols should work.
you also may give the [common] user an opportunity to have 'limited' service set (so you can use private addresses + nat/pat) for lower price or pay a bit more for 'full' service.
Given the fairly common broadband SLA's that deny running any servers, it almost seems prudent _to_ use NAT for these users. Going NAT rather than NAPT takes care of almost all cases (AFAIK even more troublesome protocols such as h323 are commonly accomodated). Besides, it gives vendor C an excuse to push bigger and bigger PXF platforms. Given the bellowing over some of the allocations in 24/8 that have been heard here before, it would seem to be welcome. Sticking large numbers of unadministered, always-on boxes that aren't supposed to be running inbound services in unrouted space would save all of us headaches.
do you think they will download mp3's and avi's via gprs? how? :))
Unless I've fallen for marketing ambiguities, even current GPRS handsets are including PC connectivity for GPRS data, so applications are a given; though "would you want to" still remains (wouldn't imagine wireless carriers are rushing to provide scads of connectivity while still nursing WAP burns). ..kg..