In a message written on Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 03:19:24PM -0600, Eric J Esslinger wrote:
First question, if you happen to be doing something like this, what bit rates are you providing.
Comcast has a program with some of the best marketing around it right now, their Internet Essentials service: http://www.internetessentials.com/ $9.95/month, 1.5Mbps down, 384kbps up.
Second question, though 'real' internet customers all get real IP's, what would you think of doing something like this with 'large scale' nat instead.
Carriers do not want to run NAT's. You can go read the archives of the CGN (Carrier Grade NAT) discussions where folks are looking at moving the NAT into the service provider due to IPv4 exhaustion. UPNP, NAT-PMP, the ability to enter static bypasses (DMZ's, NAT passthrough), combined with the problems of some applications that make thousands of TCP connections in a short order eating up ports makes it a nightmare to manage and debug. Of course, if they are doing illegal things you'd better keep some detailed records of who did what when a LEO comes knocking. The key to a low cost service is making it as low cost as possible, moving the NAT inside the carrier will had a huge amount of headache and support costs, not what you want. A possibly relevant question with IPv4 exhaustion coming is could you make this service IPv6 only so you don't have to find IPv4 addresses for it. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/