mailing list archives
Re: couple of questions regarding 'lifeline' and large scale nat...
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:43:41 -0800
In a message written on Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 03:19:24PM -0600, Eric J Esslinger wrote:
First question, if you happen to be doing something like this, what bit rates are you providing.
Comcast has a program with some of the best marketing around it right
now, their Internet Essentials service: http://www.internetessentials.com/
$9.95/month, 1.5Mbps down, 384kbps up.
Second question, though 'real' internet customers all get real IP's, what would you think of doing something like
this with 'large scale' nat instead.
Carriers do not want to run NAT's. You can go read the archives of the
CGN (Carrier Grade NAT) discussions where folks are looking at moving
the NAT into the service provider due to IPv4 exhaustion.
UPNP, NAT-PMP, the ability to enter static bypasses (DMZ's, NAT
passthrough), combined with the problems of some applications that
make thousands of TCP connections in a short order eating up ports
makes it a nightmare to manage and debug. Of course, if they are
doing illegal things you'd better keep some detailed records of who did
what when a LEO comes knocking.
The key to a low cost service is making it as low cost as possible,
moving the NAT inside the carrier will had a huge amount of headache and
support costs, not what you want.
A possibly relevant question with IPv4 exhaustion coming is could you
make this service IPv6 only so you don't have to find IPv4 addresses for
Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/