nanog mailing list archives
Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
From: Stephen Sprunk <stephen () sprunk org>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:29:06 -0500
Thus spake "Eric A. Hall" <ehall () ehsco com>
I honestly believe that ARIN is funded by stock ownership in NAT provder technologies.
No, ARIN is funded by the ISPs which it doesn't require to follow its allocation guidelines.
They are the primary reason that we have NAT and RFC 1918 problems on the net everyday.
No, the reason we have NAT is because it's a lot easier for novice network administrators to divvy up and route 10/8 than it is 208.x.x/20. Any leaf network can get all the non-portable addresses they want, for a price. There's also a general perception that NAT increases security; some "security" companies go so far as to say NAT removes the need for a firewall. It's amazing how many network admins believe this. S -- Stephen Sprunk "So long as they don't get violent, I want to let CCIE #3723 everyone say what they wish, for I myself have always K5SSS said exactly what pleased me." --Albert Einstein
Current thread:
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20, (continued)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 John Fraizer (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Greg Maxwell (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Joe Abley (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Greg Maxwell (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 David R. Conrad (Apr 10)
- RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 mike harrison (Apr 09)
- RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 John Fraizer (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Greg Maxwell (Apr 10)
- RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 John A. Tamplin (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Joe Abley (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Adrian Chadd (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Henry Yen (Apr 10)