Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: Suspected SPAM: NAT for an ISP
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:05:58 +0100 (BST)

This question appears to be as to whether the @home setup presented at nanog28 
is a good idea rather than the usual 1918 on public links.

This is not uncommon for cable modem users etc

And yes, things will break like voip, vpns.. but I guess its up to the service 
provider as to whether nat-only apps are considered supported or not. (There are 
no violations of 1918 in this which is the usual topic along these lines.)

So is that it, thread done? :)


On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Muir, Ronald wrote:

It is about time for the semi annual RFC1918 rants. ;-(

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher J. Wolff [mailto:chris () bblabs com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:52 PM
To: nanog () merit edu
Subject: Suspected SPAM: NAT for an ISP


I would like to know if any service providers have built 
their access networks out using private IP space.  It 
certainly would benefit the global IP pool but it may 
adversely affect users with special applications.  At any 
rate, it sounds like good fodder for a debate.

Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO
Broadband Laboratories, Inc.

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]