Howard, W. Lee
L.Howard at stanleyassociates.com
Fri May 13 10:12:52 EDT 2005
Good example. I've heard that address assignment in Africa is
different than North America, because ISPs (frequently the PTT)
don't want customers multihoming--they see that as promoting the
competition. What do you think will happen when they're
assigning IPv6 space?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Frank Habicht
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 2:57 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6>>32
> Hi all,
> (first post to ppml ;-)
> I'd like to argue that there's more NAT than many here think.
> I didn't buy a NAT device, but I NAT my 192.168.0.0/24 in my house (on
> Pentium1) somewhere into 172.16.0.0/12 which gets NATed at
> the ISP. Hopefully not much longer because the ISP will start
> using their (new,
> 'own') /19.
> And yes, this is not in (ip4-)address-space-rich North
> America, but in former-arin-land Tanzania. (or was the
> discussion about use in arin region?) Another ISP here is
> said to charge $10 for a static /32.
> I agree that people understand more and will demand more....
> Frank Habicht
> On 5/13/2005 9:29 AM, josmon wrote:
> > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:10:27PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>> the NAT-capable boxes at my house have NAT turned off. the
> >>> NAT-mandatory boxes I have purchased (and no doubt recorded
> >>> as units sold) have been relegated to the e-waste bin....
> >>I have to second Bill on this. I have 7 devices in my
> house capable
> >>of doing NAT and probably counted as units sold. NONE of them are
> >>actually doing any NAT. There is NO NAT in my house.
> >>Sales of NAT capable units are a very poor way to measure NAT
> > When it comes to NAT, I'm willing to bet that the average ppml
> > subscriber is less likely to NAT than the public at large, so any
> > response is (at best) skewed.
> > With that said, I have to throw in with Bill and Owen and
> admit to no
> > NAT in my house.
> > What I find interesting, is that I've been telling people
> that use NAT
> > that they aren't actually on the Internet -- but rather
> proxied to it.
> > In the last six months or so several folks have indicated that they
> > actually understood that statement.
> > Is it possible that people are finally starting to see that
> NAT breaks
> > end-to-end connectivity? (Or am I just hanging out with a
> > better/worse crowd?)
More information about the ARIN-PPML