On Monday, 2002-04-29 at 08:43 MST, Beckmeyer <beck@pacbell.net> wrote:
Is anybody here doing NAT for their customers?
I hope not. If you're NATing your customers you're no longer an ISP. You're a sort-of-tcp-service-provider (maybe a little udp too). NAT (PAT even more so) breaks so many things that it would be unconscionable to advertise as an ISP. Even some tcp apps fail under NAT. The NAT box may include a number of "fix-ups" but such will never be equivalent to giving the customer a public address. An Internet Service Provider gives the customer a full connection to the Internet. All IP protocols should work. I'm in favor of using NAT only where there is a good argument for it and the customers are given the straight story about what they're buying and what it won't be able to do. Don't call yourself an ISP. Tony Rall
On Monday, 2002-04-29 at 08:43 MST, Beckmeyer <beck@pacbell.net> wrote:
Is anybody here doing NAT for their customers? I hope not.
there are a lot of them in Japan. including large ISP, small ISP, CATV connectivity and apartment connectivity. I really hope the situation to change. not sure why it is happening here - are there any difference between JPNIC and APNIC policy/operation? itojun
On Monday, 2002-04-29 at 08:43 MST, Beckmeyer <beck@pacbell.net> wrote:
Is anybody here doing NAT for their customers?
Tony Rall:
If you're NATing your customers you're no longer an ISP. You're a sort-of-tcp-service-provider (maybe a little udp too). NAT (PAT even more
Depends on scale and application. We have lots of customers that we NAT, one way or another. And a lot more that we don't. Some customers WANT to 'just see out' and they like all the 'weird stuff turned off'. Sometimes it's a box at the customers end, sometimes it's nat'd IP's on the dial-up/ISDN/FracT1/T1/Wireless connection itself. Saying we are not an ISP because we do some NAT is a little harsh. Giving the customer options and making things work (when done right, and explained properly.... we have no sales droids) is good business and I think good for the 'net. It gives the clueless (and sometimes cluefull) just a little more isolation. What is wrong is NAT'ing when you should not.
I don't know if this is an annual argument yet, but the frog is in the pot, and the flame is on. Guess who's playing the part of the frog? Answer: ISPs who do this sort of thing. Value added security is a nice thing. Crippling Internet connections will turn the Internet into the phone company, where only the ISP gets to say what services are good and which ones are bad. While an ISP might view it appealing to be a baby bell, remember from whence we all come: the notion that the middle should not inhibit the endpoints from doing what they want. You find this to be a support headache? Offer a deal on Norton Internet Security or some such. Offer to do rules merges. Even offer a provisioning interface to some access-lists. Just make sure that when that next really fun game is delivered on a play station that speaka de IP your customers can play it, and that you haven't built a business model around them not being able to play it. Eliot mike harrison wrote:
On Monday, 2002-04-29 at 08:43 MST, Beckmeyer <beck@pacbell.net> wrote:
Is anybody here doing NAT for their customers?
Tony Rall:
If you're NATing your customers you're no longer an ISP. You're a sort-of-tcp-service-provider (maybe a little udp too). NAT (PAT even more
Depends on scale and application. We have lots of customers that we NAT, one way or another. And a lot more that we don't. Some customers WANT to 'just see out' and they like all the 'weird stuff turned off'. Sometimes it's a box at the customers end, sometimes it's nat'd IP's on the dial-up/ISDN/FracT1/T1/Wireless connection itself.
Saying we are not an ISP because we do some NAT is a little harsh. Giving the customer options and making things work (when done right, and explained properly.... we have no sales droids) is good business and I think good for the 'net. It gives the clueless (and sometimes cluefull) just a little more isolation.
What is wrong is NAT'ing when you should not.
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 02:55:02PM -0700, lear@cisco.com said:
I don't know if this is an annual argument yet, but the frog is in the pot, and the flame is on. Guess who's playing the part of the frog? Answer: ISPs who do this sort of thing. Value added security is a nice thing. Crippling Internet connections will turn the Internet into the phone company, where only the ISP gets to say what services are good and which ones are bad. While an ISP might view it appealing to be a baby bell, remember from whence we all come: the notion that the middle should not inhibit the endpoints from doing what they want. You find this to be a support headache? Offer a deal on Norton Internet Security or some such. Offer to do rules merges. Even offer a provisioning interface to some access-lists. Just make sure that when that next really fun game is delivered on a play station that speaka de IP your customers can play it, and that you haven't built a business model around them not being able to play it.
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). 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.
Eliot
-- 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
At 3:03 PM -0700 5/1/02, Scott Francis wrote:
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 02:55:02PM -0700, lear@cisco.com said:
I don't know if this is an annual argument yet, but the frog is in the pot, and the flame is on. Guess who's playing the part of the frog? Answer: ISPs who do this sort of thing. Value added security is a nice thing. Crippling Internet connections will turn the Internet into the phone company, where only the ISP gets to say what services are good and which ones are bad. While an ISP might view it appealing to be a baby bell, remember from whence we all come: the notion that the middle should not inhibit the endpoints from doing what they want. You find this to be a support headache? Offer a deal on Norton Internet Security or some such. Offer to do rules merges. Even offer a provisioning interface to some access-lists. Just make sure that when that next really fun game is delivered on a play station that speaka de IP your customers can play it, and that you haven't built a business model around them not being able to play it.
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? 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? 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.
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. -pmb -- Ring around the Internet, | Peter Bierman <pmb@sfgoth.com> Packet with a bit not set | http://www.sfgoth.com/pmb/ SYN ACK SYN ACK, |"Nobody realizes that some people expend We all go down. -A. Stern | tremendous energy merely to be normal."-Al Camus
I think a lot of the GRPS stuff is heading towards IPv6 w/IPv4 gatewaying. The NAT issue has certainly resulted in a quite a few disgruntled satellite customers (I'm thinking here primarily of direcpc.com) who're willing to put up with the large latencies, but get really irate when their apps won't work via NAT, or who want to run RFC1918 space for a LAN at home, then find out that lots of stuff can't stand being NATted twice. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Roland Dobbins <mordant@gothik.org> // 650.776.1024 voice "Central databases already exist. Privacy is already gone." -- Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle Corporation On Wed, 2002-05-01 at 16:07, Peter Bierman wrote:
At 3:03 PM -0700 5/1/02, Scott Francis wrote:
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 02:55:02PM -0700, lear@cisco.com said:
I don't know if this is an annual argument yet, but the frog is in the pot, and the flame is on. Guess who's playing the part of the frog? Answer: ISPs who do this sort of thing. Value added security is a nice thing. Crippling Internet connections will turn the Internet into the phone company, where only the ISP gets to say what services are good and which ones are bad. While an ISP might view it appealing to be a baby bell, remember from whence we all come: the notion that the middle should not inhibit the endpoints from doing what they want. You find this to be a support headache? Offer a deal on Norton Internet Security or some such. Offer to do rules merges. Even offer a provisioning interface to some access-lists. Just make sure that when that next really fun game is delivered on a play station that speaka de IP your customers can play it, and that you haven't built a business model around them not being able to play it.
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? 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?
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.
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.
-pmb
-- Ring around the Internet, | Peter Bierman <pmb@sfgoth.com> Packet with a bit not set | http://www.sfgoth.com/pmb/ SYN ACK SYN ACK, |"Nobody realizes that some people expend We all go down. -A. Stern | tremendous energy merely to be normal."-Al Camus
Roland, I have a static IP w/DirecPC and I haven't noticed any problems running ICS on Win2K. Have things changed? --Michael ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roland Dobbins" <mordant@gothik.org> To: "Peter Bierman" <pmb@sfgoth.com> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>; "Beckmeyer" <beck@pacbell.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:26 PM Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
I think a lot of the GRPS stuff is heading towards IPv6 w/IPv4 gatewaying.
The NAT issue has certainly resulted in a quite a few disgruntled satellite customers (I'm thinking here primarily of direcpc.com) who're willing to put up with the large latencies, but get really irate when their apps won't work via NAT, or who want to run RFC1918 space for a LAN at home, then find out that lots of stuff can't stand being NATted twice.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------ Roland Dobbins <mordant@gothik.org> // 650.776.1024 voice
"Central databases already exist. Privacy is already gone."
-- Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle Corporation
On Wed, 2002-05-01 at 16:07, Peter Bierman wrote:
At 3:03 PM -0700 5/1/02, Scott Francis wrote:
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 02:55:02PM -0700, lear@cisco.com said:
I don't know if this is an annual argument yet, but the frog is in the pot, and the flame is on. Guess who's playing the part of the frog? Answer: ISPs who do this sort of thing. Value added security is a nice thing. Crippling Internet connections will turn the Internet into the phone company, where only the ISP gets to say what services are good and which ones are bad. While an ISP might view it appealing to be a baby bell, remember from whence we all come: the notion that the middle should not inhibit the endpoints from doing what they want. You find this to be a support headache? Offer a deal on Norton Internet Security or some such. Offer to do rules merges. Even offer a provisioning interface to some access-lists. Just make sure that when that next really fun game is delivered on a play station that speaka de IP your customers can play it, and that you haven't built a business model around them not being able to play it.
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? 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?
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.
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.
-pmb
-- Ring around the Internet, | Peter Bierman <pmb@sfgoth.com> Packet with a bit not set | http://www.sfgoth.com/pmb/ SYN ACK SYN ACK, |"Nobody realizes that some people expend We all go down. -A. Stern | tremendous energy merely to be normal."-Al Camus
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. -pmb ---- It certainly allows sloppy/generous/obtuse internal delegations. Some may say that saves time/management headache/whatever. MY question is -- How do you know if a justification for _public_ space handling a large NAT'd pool is the proper size and not an over/under allocation based on the customer in question? Deepak Jain AiNET
Deepak Jain wrote:
MY question is -- How do you know if a justification for _public_ space handling a large NAT'd pool is the proper size and not an over/under allocation based on the customer in question?
Why is the answer to this question any different than it has been since BCP-12? The answer is that we don't, but we guard against the problem with methods such as slow start allocations. Eliot
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
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.
The only people who'd be deploying GPRS are GSM cellular providers, no? Verizon and Sprint PCS, in particular, are not using GPRS, but migrating to CDMA-based 3G cellular technologies. I don't know that those technologies use CDMA. And of course, there are still markets like my very own hometown (2nd largest city in Ohio) that don't have GSM yet (even though #1 and #3 do). VoiceStream is supposedly launching their GSM network in Cleveland (*snort* I've heard that before). But they're not here yet, AT&T is nowhere near doing GSM here as far as I know, and Cingular's network here (former AmeriBlech Cellular) is TDMA. I could be completely off base, of course. Being a customer of Sprint PCS and Verizon, and a former customer of Alltel and Northcoast PCS, I've not had much reason to follow GSM developments; every one of the companies I've used runs CDMA. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. -- Steve Sobol, CTO (Server Guru, Network Janitor and Head Geek) JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH 888.480.4NET http://JustThe.net "The Indians are unfolding into the 2002 season like a lethal lawn chair." (_News-Herald_ Indians Columnist Jim Ingraham, April 11, 2002)
On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 10:33 , Steven J. Sobol wrote:
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
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.
The only people who'd be deploying GPRS are GSM cellular providers, no?
The concern exists regardless of the specifics of the always-on, cellular packet radio protocols being used, surely?
[GSM coverage is patchy in the US]
It's prevalent elsewhere. I'd be surprised if there aren't more GSM subscribers in the world than non-GSM subscribers. Joe
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Joe Abley wrote:
The concern exists regardless of the specifics of the always-on, cellular packet radio protocols being used, surely?
You're right, of course. I was focusing on the wrong thing when I replied.
[GSM coverage is patchy in the US]
It's prevalent elsewhere. I'd be surprised if there aren't more GSM subscribers in the world than non-GSM subscribers.
GSM is *the* standard in Europe. Australia, Korea, Japan and a couple other Pacific-Rim countries are primarily CDMA. South America is primarily TDMA. Most of the rest of the world is GSM, if I'm not mistaken. -- Steve Sobol, CTO (Server Guru, Network Janitor and Head Geek) JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH 888.480.4NET http://JustThe.net "The Indians are unfolding into the 2002 season like a lethal lawn chair." (_News-Herald_ Indians Columnist Jim Ingraham, April 11, 2002)
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:27:51PM -0400, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
It's prevalent elsewhere. I'd be surprised if there aren't more GSM subscribers in the world than non-GSM subscribers.
GSM is *the* standard in Europe. Australia, Korea, Japan and a couple other Pacific-Rim countries are primarily CDMA. South America is primarily TDMA. Most of the rest of the world is GSM, if I'm not mistaken.
correct on all counts but japan.. no gsm in japan as of nov 2001 :-( 3GSM is avalible tho... http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_jp.shtml michael -- e: michael@ele-mental.org c: +1.614.260.6716 u: www.ele-mental.org Wir fahr'n fahr'n fahr'n auf der Autobahn
On Fri, 3 May 2002, michael thomas guldan wrote:
It's prevalent elsewhere. I'd be surprised if there aren't more GSM subscribers in the world than non-GSM subscribers.
GSM is *the* standard in Europe. Australia, Korea, Japan and a couple other Pacific-Rim countries are primarily CDMA. South America is primarily TDMA. Most of the rest of the world is GSM, if I'm not mistaken.
correct on all counts but japan.. no gsm in japan as of nov 2001 :-(
Read again, I said Japan is CDMA. Although I think I was corrected on that.
3GSM is avalible tho...
http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_jp.shtml
michael
-- Steve Sobol, CTO (Server Guru, Network Janitor and Head Geek) JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH 888.480.4NET http://JustThe.net "The Indians are unfolding into the 2002 season like a lethal lawn chair." (_News-Herald_ Indians Columnist Jim Ingraham, April 11, 2002)
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
### 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 | +=========================================================================*/
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 01:32:16AM -0700, khuon@NEEBU.Net said:
### 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.
*nod* NAT is a solution for current problems, in some situations. It may or may not create more problems in the future than it solves in the present (sign me up for one of those gateway router phones though - mmm...) Again, while I'm not predicting what kind of network landscape we may see in the future, NAT _does_ appear to solve problems in the present under certain situations, and IMHO should not be dismissed out of hand just because it's not "pure IP." Forward thinking is critical - but those who do it at the expense of current issues are called researchers and scientists, and generally are not running production networks. :) -- 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
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Jake Khuon wrote:
Time to start thinking a little further down the line. What if the phone actually becomes an wireless IP gateway router?
Yuck. Current WAP-based phones can't even do websites well. I've not been privy to 3G tests, so I don't know if GPRS/CDMA 1x does better. Of course, some of that is phone-specific. My Verizon Wireless Qualcomm 860's web browser always responded much more quickly than my current VZW Nokia 3285's, and both phones feature microbrowsers authored by the same company (Phone.com/Openwave). -- Steve Sobol, CTO (Server Guru, Network Janitor and Head Geek) JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH 888.480.4NET http://JustThe.net "The Indians are unfolding into the 2002 season like a lethal lawn chair." (_News-Herald_ Indians Columnist Jim Ingraham, April 11, 2002)
At 1:20 AM -0700 5/2/02, Scott Francis wrote:
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:07:34PM -0700, pmb+nanog@sfgoth.com said:
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.
And what if I want to invent the next big thing? A game, that people play in real time, with their palm-sized gizmo. What if that game can't be made scalable unless those devices have real IPs? What if that game is the catalyst that causes a million more customers to go buy a gizmo from Cingular? If providers assume that GPRS devices are all just "web-enabled phones", then that's all they will _ever_ be, and no one will care, and no one will buy them. If all I want is a PHONE, not a server, I can buy that today (and Cingular doesn't have to spend millions to deply a whole new backend.) IMHO, the attitude of "we already know what services you want" is at odds with the intent of the Internet, and exactly the BS that Telcos have been feeding customers for years. I have yet to see any good argument for why mobile-IP providers should use NAT instead of routable space. And no, "because they might get rooted" is not a good reason. That's the responsibility of the device designers, NOT THE NETWORK. -pmb
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 02:22:40AM -0700, pmb+nanog@sfgoth.com said: [snip]
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.
And what if I want to invent the next big thing? A game, that people play in real time, with their palm-sized gizmo. What if that game can't be made scalable unless those devices have real IPs? What if that game is the catalyst that causes a million more customers to go buy a gizmo from Cingular?
That's a lot of "if"s. As one other person wrote, IPv6 will probably be the answer here - the only question is, how long it will be before it becomes de facto (i.e. all standard networks support and transit it, by default), and how much pain we will have to endure before this is the case.
If providers assume that GPRS devices are all just "web-enabled phones", then that's all they will _ever_ be, and no one will care, and no one will buy them. If all I want is a PHONE, not a server, I can buy that today (and Cingular doesn't have to spend millions to deply a whole new backend.)
*nod* I'm as much a fan of new gizmos and new features as anybody (heck, my cell phone does ssh! (it's a VisorPhone running TGssh)), but I think until we get an infrastructure that can scale to support assigning a routeable IP to even the _current_ number of cell phones, we need a stopgap measure in the meantime. NAT is a good contender for that measure. IPv6 is, IMHO, the ultimate solution, but I'm not sure we're there yet.
IMHO, the attitude of "we already know what services you want" is at odds with the intent of the Internet, and exactly the BS that Telcos have been feeding customers for years.
I apologize if that was the attitude that I conveyed; it is most assuredly _not_ the attitude I hold. I merely meant to convey that a workable solution now is better than the perfect solution 5 years from now. No reason why we can't have both, though.
I have yet to see any good argument for why mobile-IP providers should use NAT instead of routable space. And no, "because they might get rooted" is not a good reason. That's the responsibility of the device designers, NOT THE NETWORK.
And I still have yet to hear a convincing argument for why _right now_, NAT is not, at the least, a workable solution to this issue. It can surely hold us for a year or three until IPv6 has become the standard. (that timeframe may be a bit optimistic ...) Given current devices and technology, why is NAT not a temporary solution?
-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
At 11:34 AM -0700 5/2/02, Scott Francis wrote:
And what if I want to invent the next big thing? A game, that people play in real time, with their palm-sized gizmo. What if that game can't be made scalable unless those devices have real IPs? What if that game is the catalyst that causes a million more customers to go buy a gizmo from Cingular?
That's a lot of "if"s. As one other person wrote, IPv6 will probably be the answer here - the only question is, how long it will be before it becomes de facto (i.e. all standard networks support and transit it, by default), and how much pain we will have to endure before this is the case.
Well, I'm looking at it from Cingular's perspective. They want to roll out a new service. They want to make more money off it than from the old service. They're willing to invest a bunch of money in new equipment if it means they'll get enough people to sign up to pay for it. This service is called GPRS. If IPv6 is the answer, and it isn't available until the _next_ itteration of this process, then _this_ itteration isn't going to be as profitable as it could be. Cingular isn't going to redesign their backend a year from now just because IPv6 is suddenly usable. Mobile-IP devices are all about bringing the Internet to your pocket. That doesn't mean just the web! The web is UI optimized for a desktop machine. Who knows what specific applications might be developed for a user accessing the Internet from a device the size of a bar of soap? What if I want to write CUSeeMe for mobile phones? Or a scavanger hunt game? Something that takes advantage of the mobility rarely found by a desktop user? It is these _form factor specific_ applications that will drive the sales of devices that utilize this new network. Surfing the web is just the tip of the iceberg that everyone already understands. If that's the only application enabled by GPRS, then I don't forsee GPRS phones selling in leaps and bounds. It seems like providers would be spending a whole lot of money to upgrade their network for just one new application that only a few customers are asking for.
I have yet to see any good argument for why mobile-IP providers should use NAT instead of routable space. And no, "because they might get rooted" is not a good reason. That's the responsibility of the device designers, NOT THE NETWORK.
And I still have yet to hear a convincing argument for why _right now_, NAT is not, at the least, a workable solution to this issue. It can surely hold us for a year or three until IPv6 has become the standard. (that timeframe may be a bit optimistic ...) Given current devices and technology, why is NAT not a temporary solution?
A temporary solution to what problem? Assuming the network can distribute NATed addresses, why can't it distribute real ones? Maybe I'm missing something. John Beckmeyer didn't say why they were looking into using NAT, he only asked if anyone else was using it on this scale. The presumption of the first several responders was that it was to conserve addresses, which they pointed out is not actually necessary. I'm hoping that was the case, and that maybe the choice of NAT can be revisited... -pmb
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 05:09:15PM -0700, pmb+nanog@sfgoth.com said: [snip]
Mobile-IP devices are all about bringing the Internet to your pocket. That doesn't mean just the web! The web is UI optimized for a desktop machine. Who knows what specific applications might be developed for a user accessing the Internet from a device the size of a bar of soap? What if I want to write CUSeeMe for mobile phones? Or a scavanger hunt game? Something that takes advantage of the mobility rarely found by a desktop user?
It is these _form factor specific_ applications that will drive the sales of devices that utilize this new network. Surfing the web is just the tip of the iceberg that everyone already understands. If that's the only application enabled by GPRS, then I don't forsee GPRS phones selling in leaps and bounds. It seems like providers would be spending a whole lot of money to upgrade their network for just one new application that only a few customers are asking for.
Good points here. I think sometimes we miss the future direction and possibilities that technology may take in our focus on making things work in the present.
The presumption of the first several responders was that it was to conserve addresses, which they pointed out is not actually necessary. I'm hoping that was the case, and that maybe the choice of NAT can be revisited...
As I wrote to another poster, it's possible that I may have been too quick to jump on the conservation bandwagon. I was directed to http://www.caida.org/outreach/resources/learn/ipv4space/ which, although possibly dated, shows that plenty of space is available. Whether or not this is easily assigned/accessible space is something else. I think merely reclaiming some of the legacy A blocks assigned years ago that are being used sparsely, if at all, would eliminate any lingering doubts about space, at least for the time being. The chances of companies giving up their unused blocks, or trading for smaller ones, is probably pretty slim though.
-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
At 01:20 AM 5/2/2002 -0700, Scott Francis wrote:
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.
I'm not buying a phone I can't run ssh from. End of story. My current phone does all that and more. Why step back into the dark ages of analog-type services? Best Regards, Simon -- ###
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Simon Higgs wrote:
At 01:20 AM 5/2/2002 -0700, Scott Francis wrote:
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. I'm not buying a phone I can't run ssh from. End of story. My current phone does all that and more. Why step back into the dark ages of analog-type services?
The average customer doesn't even know what telnet is, let alone ssh. All they care about is browsing pr0n. -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 04:56:40PM -0700, goemon@anime.net said: [snip]
I'm not buying a phone I can't run ssh from. End of story. My current phone does all that and more. Why step back into the dark ages of analog-type services?
The average customer doesn't even know what telnet is, let alone ssh. All they care about is browsing pr0n.
Your phone can surf porn? Maybe the technology revolution has finally arrived after all ...
-Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
-- 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
On Fri, 03 May 2002 00:12:34 PDT, Scott Francis said:
Your phone can surf porn? Maybe the technology revolution has finally arriv= ed after all ...
No, it's still in the "dancing bear" stage. There's the question of whether it's worth doing on that class display device.... On the other hand, if somebody's looking for a *business* opportunity, I could see a *big* market for "Where do I find?" databases for GPS-capable phones - I think somebody already did a "public restrooms in Manhattan", and I know I've been in strange cities, known there was a specific restraunt or store somewhere within 10 blocks, and been willing to pay for a reliable hint for the parking garage nearest... -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:29:32AM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu said:
On Fri, 03 May 2002 00:12:34 PDT, Scott Francis said:
Your phone can surf porn? Maybe the technology revolution has finally arriv= ed after all ...
No, it's still in the "dancing bear" stage. There's the question of whether it's worth doing on that class display device....
On the other hand, if somebody's looking for a *business* opportunity, I could see a *big* market for "Where do I find?" databases for GPS-capable phones - I think somebody already did a "public restrooms in Manhattan", and I know I've been in strange cities, known there was a specific restraunt or store somewhere within 10 blocks, and been willing to pay for a reliable hint for the parking garage nearest...
that is an excellent idea. I know one thing I would LOVE to have is a search engine that can answer my question, "Where can I find a coffee house {optionally: with 802.11b} open after midnight during the week in Los Angeles {optionally: the Valley}?" No good answers so far ... at least, none that involve driving less than 30 minutes. :) -- 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
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Scott Francis wrote:
that is an excellent idea. I know one thing I would LOVE to have is a search engine that can answer my question, "Where can I find a coffee house {optionally: with 802.11b} open after midnight during the week in Los Angeles {optionally: the Valley}?"
No good answers so far ... at least, none that involve driving less than 30 minutes. :)
Ha! I've been in Burbank (in the Valley north of LA) for 7 months now, I moved here from London. I've looked and looked and looked for *ANYTHING* other than the odd gas station or supermarket open passed 9pm! Coming from a place where restaurants are regularly open until 3am, even far into the suburbs, this is a serious culture shock :-/
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Avleen Vig wrote:
Ha! I've been in Burbank (in the Valley north of LA) for 7 months now, I moved here from London. I've looked and looked and looked for *ANYTHING* other than the odd gas station or supermarket open passed 9pm!
?? Plenty of gas stations around here open after 9, some all night long. Same with groceries. Drugstores close pretty early though.
Coming from a place where restaurants are regularly open until 3am, even far into the suburbs, this is a serious culture shock :-/
-- Steve Sobol, CTO (Server Guru, Network Janitor and Head Geek) JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH 888.480.4NET http://JustThe.net "The Indians are unfolding into the 2002 season like a lethal lawn chair." (_News-Herald_ Indians Columnist Jim Ingraham, April 11, 2002)
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 04:44:28PM -0700, simon@higgs.com said:
At 01:20 AM 5/2/2002 -0700, Scott Francis wrote:
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.
I'm not buying a phone I can't run ssh from. End of story. My current phone does all that and more. Why step back into the dark ages of analog-type services?
*grin* Mine runs ssh too. :) I just wish I had time/talent enough to hack it to do key-based auth and ssh v2. Note my use of the phrase 'average customer' though. Readers of this list probably do not qualify as such.
Best Regards,
Simon
-- 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
On Wed, 01 May 2002 14:55:02 PDT, Eliot Lear said:
some access-lists. Just make sure that when that next really fun game is delivered on a play station that speaka de IP your customers can play it, and that you haven't built a business model around them not being able to play it.
There was a reason I said *ALMOST*. ;) Thanks, Eliot.
participants (17)
-
Avleen Vig -
Dan Hollis -
Deepak Jain -
Eliot Lear -
Jake Khuon -
Joe Abley -
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino -
Michael Painter -
michael thomas guldan -
mike harrison -
Peter Bierman -
Roland Dobbins -
Scott Francis -
Simon Higgs -
Steven J. Sobol -
Tony Rall -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu