On Apr 22, 2005, at 1:14 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
Apologies for the late reply, but T-Mobile's US GPRS network hands out
RFC1918 space as well.
Ah, that depends on if you're on WAP, T-Mobile Internet or T-Mobile VPN.
The VPN service is exactly the same as the Internet one, except that it
gives
Apologies for the late reply, but T-Mobile's US GPRS network hands out
RFC1918 space as well.
-C
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 01:40:12PM -0700, Scott Call wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Philip Matthews wrote:
A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers
that place
Thanks to everyone who replied to my question about NAT usage
in service providers (see original posting below).
I got a lot of private replies, as well as those
who posted to the list.
To summarize:
It seems that there are quite a few providers who do this.
I was told of at least 24 providers in
That makes very little sense to me since the smaller providers can get
a /22 directly from ARIN.
I, personaly, would never purchase service from a provider that insisted
on sticking me behind NAT.
SPRINT PCS does not NAT my cellphone. I receive a dynamic address at
connection time, but, it is a
On 4/20/05, Tom Vest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 19, 2005, at 5:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
That makes very little sense to me since the smaller providers can get
a /22 directly from ARIN.
Sometimes resources that are come from a regional registry are not
welcomed by a national
On Apr 19, 2005, at 10:24 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 4/20/05, Tom Vest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 19, 2005, at 5:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
That makes very little sense to me since the smaller providers can
get
a /22 directly from ARIN.
Sometimes resources that come from a regional
On 4/20/05, Tom Vest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As in, sometimes national operators will decline to speak bgp to
(topologically) subnational operators, so that even when they present
themselves with a regionally allocated public ASN and address space,
these will not be accepted. I am not at
On Apr 19, 2005, at 10:57 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
One possible reason would be that quite often the people there are not
very capable at bgp at all .. so someone who's selling them routers
gives them a static route to their upstream, then they give their
downstream customers a word doc
providers that NAT their whole network?
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 03:39:56PM -0400, Philip Matthews wrote:
A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers
that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their
customers get private addresses rather than public
A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers
that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their
customers get private addresses rather than public address.
It is often stated that these are primarily cable-based providers.
I am trying to get a handle
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 03:39:56PM -0400, Philip Matthews wrote:
A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers
that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their
customers get private addresses rather than public address.
It is often stated that
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Philip Matthews wrote:
A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers
that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their
customers get private addresses rather than public address.
It is often stated that these are primarily
Philip == Philip Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Philip A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some
Philip service providers that place a NAT box in front of their
Philip entire network, so all their customers get private addresses
Philip rather than public address. It is
A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers
that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their
customers get private addresses rather than public address.
It is often stated that these are primarily cable-based providers.
I am trying to get a
On 4/15/05, Philip Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am trying to get a handle on how common this practice is.
No one that I have asked seems to know any provider that does this,
and a search of a few FAQs plus about an hour of Googling hasn't
turned up anything definite (but maybe I am
A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers
that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their
customers get private addresses rather than public address.
It is often stated that these are primarily cable-based providers.
I
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Philip Matthews wrote:
A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers
that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their
customers get private addresses rather than public address.
It is often stated that these are primarily
there's
several compromises you'd have to make in order to operate this way.
-Rob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Philip Matthews
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:40 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Service providers that NAT their whole
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 01:40:12PM -0700, Scott Call wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Philip Matthews wrote:
A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers
that place a NAT box in front of their entire network, so all their
customers get private addresses rather than
While not big by any sense of the word, we NAT [almost] all of our
internal network. It wasn't initially a matter of choice, but rather of
necessity. We had a sprinklings of small netblocks in the old legacy C
swamp, mostly in the old SURAnet/BBN allocation, and after the Genuity
takeover they
20 matches
Mail list logo
