### On Thu, 2 May 2002 01:20:40 -0700, Scott Francis ### <darkuncle@darkuncle.net> casually decided to expound upon Peter Bierman ### <pmb+nanog@sfgoth.com> the following thoughts about "Re: Large ISPs ### doing NAT?": SF> The average customer buying a "web-enabled" phone doesn't need a SF> publicly-routeable IP. I challenge anybody to demonstrate why a cell phone SF> needs a public IP. It's a PHONE, not a server. Time to start thinking a little further down the line. What if the phone actually becomes an wireless IP gateway router? It routes packets from a PAN (personal area network) riding on top of Bluetooth or 802.11{a,b} to the 3G network for transit. NAT would certainly become very messy. -- /*===================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@NEEBU.Net> ]======================+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | --------------- | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| N E T W O R K S | +=========================================================================*/