Perhaps there is a difference with the Nynex/BA side of Verizon and the GTE
part. The GTE part uses 4.x.x.x which it got from a previous acquisition.
At 07:05 PM 1/21/2001, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>Before handing out awards: one of my colleagues here, living in
>Westchester County, got a nice 10.x.x.x address (net A alright...) and
>couldn't figure out why Exceed wasn't working.
>
>However, I think it's high time to establish a "Good Housekeeping" seal
>for "real" (pure, unadultared, GM-free, ...) Internet service, i.e.,
>
>- without "transparent" caches
>- no port restrictions
>- no NATs
>
>(and whatever other abominations one might want to add to this list).
>Seems like a good role for ISOC, for example :-)
>
>Matt Holdrege wrote:
> >
> > At 11:47 AM 1/21/2001, Daniel Senie wrote:
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > Let's stamp out NAT, *now* - before it becomes too entrenched and
> we can
> > > > never get rid of it. We don't need that sort of "worked" again.
> > >
> > >Ummm, it's FAR too late for that. As for numbers of users, it's my guess
> > >a large percentage of the cable modem users and DSL users are running
> > >NAPT boxes.
> >
> > Speaking of DSL and NAT, I think we should give credit where credit is due
> > and thank Verizon for handing out public Class A addresses to their legions
> > of DSL users. If we credit them enough, three things may happen. First of
> > all they will stay with this scheme and never use NAT. Secondly other DSL
> > or cable providers may see the wisdom of this and do the same. Lastly
> > perhaps we can reallocate some Class A address space to the large always-on
> > providers who need it.
> >
> > I think the Internet Society ought to give them an award or something
> > (hint, hint).
> >
> > -
> > This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which
> > is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed.
> > Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.
