Howard,
I seem to remember @home trying to base their network on RFC 1918
addressing, and then petitioning for a Class "A" after they ran into
problems with users that were trying to play games across the Internet.  It
seems that many games rely on a unique IP address to identify users.  Does
this sound familiar to you?

Irwin

-----Original Message-----
From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 12:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NAT for ISPs


Current IP address allocation from ARIN assumes that ISPs will use 
private addressing and NAT for single-homed customers.  They are 
reasonable about exceptions, such as protocols that won't work 
through NAT, but the exceptions need to be justified for the ISP to 
continue getting address space.

If the customer is multihomed to more than one ISP, the requirements 
for coordinating NATs among them are accepted to be impossible. 
Multihoming alone, however, does not justify provider-independent 
address space.

>I am a newbie
>
>I would hazard a guess that, for an ISP(assuming thousands of users) to do
>address translation would be a large technical feat, consuming more
Hardware
>and other resources than the savings on registered IP addresses could
>justify
>
>Please correct me if I am wrong
>
>Tayta
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>  > Dear All,
>  >
>  > Anybody here who work for ISP that use NATed/PATed address for their
>  > clients?  Is it appropriate for ISP to use NAT/PAT?
>  >
>  >
>  > Thanks
>  >
>  > Reden

___________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to