-----Original Message----- From: Jake Khuon [mailto:khuon@NEEBU.Net] Sent: 2. mája 2002 10:51 To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
DT> and what if one of the devices behind that phone would also be a DT> personal "ip gateway router" (or how you call that)... you could DT> recursively iterate as deep as your mail size allows you to...
It's possible. Could it get ugly? Yes. Do we just want to shut our eyes and say "let's not go there."... well... maybe. I just don't think the solution is to say, "this can never happen... we must limit all handheld devices to sitting behind a NAT gateway."
no eye-shutting. it's just about considering HOW MANY (or WHAT PART) of your users will need the 'full' service. if you have 95% of bfu's with web+mail phones or pda's then nat is completely ok for them. and those 5% (if so many ever) phreaks - give them an opportunity to have public ip with no nat for a few bucks more you will end up with exactly two exactly specified services... not that bad, is it? -- Tomas Daniska systems engineer Tronet Computer Networks Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199 A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first.
At 11:15 AM +0200 5/2/02, Daniska Tomas wrote:
no eye-shutting. it's just about considering HOW MANY (or WHAT PART) of your users will need the 'full' service. if you have 95% of bfu's with web+mail phones or pda's then nat is completely ok for them. and those 5% (if so many ever) phreaks - give them an opportunity to have public ip with no nat for a few bucks more
you will end up with exactly two exactly specified services... not that bad, is it?
If no applications need the "few bucks more" service, no one will pay for it. If no one pays for it, no one will write applications that need it. Chicken or Egg? You decide. -pmb
### On Thu, 2 May 2002 11:15:00 +0200, "Daniska Tomas" <tomas@tronet.com> ### casually decided to expound upon <nanog@merit.edu> the following ### thoughts about "RE: Large ISPs doing NAT? ": DT> you will end up with exactly two exactly specified services... not that DT> bad, is it? Nope... and that was my point. I was simply trying to address a statement that might pidgeonhole the role of a 3G/GPRS device. I think we all should know better than to assume something will never happen. -- /*===================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@NEEBU.Net> ]======================+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | --------------- | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| N E T W O R K S | +=========================================================================*/
participants (3)
-
Daniska Tomas -
Jake Khuon -
Peter Bierman