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. ;-(
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.