nanog mailing list archives
NAT (was Re: too many routes)
From: Sanjay Dani <sanjay () professionals com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 18:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
From smd () clock org Thu Sep 11 13:13 PDT 1997 "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra () scfn thpl lib fl us> writes:Perhaps I misunderstood Sanjay, Sean, but I believe his concern was that the addresses _not be the property of an upstream (ie: backbone) provider_ to provide flexibility of connection choice.Welcome to the new Internet, which is being built. Two of the fundamental concepts that are important: -- IP addresses are not forever -- IP addresses are not end-to-end
Jay paraphrased my concerns correctly. NAT does not give any incentives to an independently addressed provider (that does not own global physical infrastructure) to switch to using "multiple outward-facing addresses [from upstream providers' address space]". Hey, if I were a dreamer, I wouldn't count on those clueless, bandwidth stealing, soon-to-be squashed or consolidated, small providers, to help me bring through my vision ;-) No disrespect meant. I do enjoy reading and learning from the long, well written articles of the experienced folks out there. However, a small provider (one that believes they engineer better Internet throughput for clients' web servers than some of the big boys), would rather watch the bottomline. Sanjay.
Current thread:
- NAT (was Re: too many routes) Sanjay Dani (Sep 11)