On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:07:34PM -0700, pmb+nanog@sfgoth.com said: [snip]
As long as it is _clear_ from the get-go that customers behind NAT are getting that service, and not publicly-routable IP space, I don't see the problem. If they don't like it, they don't have to sign up to begin with - as long as there is no doubt as to what kind of service they're getting, there shouldn't be a problem (legally, at any rate).
You've got to be kidding. Do you think it's clear to the average consumer buying a GPRS phone what NAT is, and why they might or might not want it?
The average customer buying a "web-enabled" phone doesn't need a publicly-routeable IP. I challenge anybody to demonstrate why a cell phone needs a public IP. It's a PHONE, not a server.
Do you think the use of NAT will be explained to these customers? Or clearly stated in 5pt text on page 17 of the service agreement?
There's enough other fine print that adding this in somewhere should not be an issue.
IMHO, as one of the people who will likely be using Cingular's GPRS network with a Danger HipTop, I _strongly_ hope they choose to use routable address space instead of NAT. I would hate for NAT to be an impediment to some cool new app no one has thought of yet because these gizmos aren't in widespread use yet.
I am totally in favor of public IPs being an _option_ for use with PDAs, phones and the like - but for the average user, I do not see it being a necessity, or even really a benefit.
This is not to say that if, as Eliot posits, the next Big Thing on the market requires public IPs that your customer base won't all jump ship. That's a risk that providers will have to weigh against the benefits of NAT.
I'm more concerned that if the major metropolitan markets deploying GPRS all use NAT, then the Next Big Thing won't ever happen on GPRS devices. Customers won't jump ship if they have no where to jump to. That might sound attractive to the bean counters, but think of the customers you might never get in the first place. Also, I don't see how deploying NAT could be a cost savings over requesting real IP space.
I'm not saying it's the best course of action necessarily; I was trying to make the "best tool for the job" argument. There are cases where NAT is a definite advantage, or where having a public IP offers no clear benefits, if not any obvious risks. Until the model changes drastically, I just don't see the average phone/wireless PDA user needing a public IP for every device she/he has. But it should definitely remain an option - just like static IPs on DSL is an option with most providers.
-pmb
-- Scott Francis darkuncle@ [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t Systems/Network Manager sfrancis@ [work:] t o n o s . c o m GPG public key 0xCB33CCA7 illum oportet crescere me autem minui