You'd think that an ISP, cable-company or not, would tend to charge by volume or connection time rather than the number of IP addresses in use. The last of these makes about as much sense as charging for all the one bits transmitted, and leaving the zeroes free.
----- Original Message ----- From: "stanislav shalunov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 23:51 Subject: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP > NAT is an ugly hack that's impairing people's connectivity, right? > For some, it might be. Others find different faults with NAT. > A highly unusual for an IETFer (and very disturbing) perspective of > cable companies is provided in an article in CED magazine "The CAT and > the NAT" by Leslie Ellis, Technology Analyst: > > http://www.cedmagazine.com/ced/2001/1101/11d.htm > > (Link appeared on Slashdot.) > > This article proceeds to describe NATs as incarnations of everything > evil. One of the reasons they are so evil, according to Leslie Ellis, > is that they allow users to avoid paying for extra IP numbers: > > > What's the value of the stolen goods? Revenues associated with > > additional IP addresses, for one. Let's say one in 10 of the 5 > > million U.S. cable modem subscribers are usurping IP addresses > > without paying the $4.95 per month fee that's typically charged > > (beyond a pre-specified limit, which varies MSO to MSO.) Right off > > that bat, that's just shy of $30 million lost, annually. > > [I replaced the Microsoft character for the apostrophe with ASCII in > the paragraph above.] > > I can see it: "So, you'd like to purchase a /48 with your > eye-pee-vee-sex package? Are you saying it should be the default > allocation? I don't know who told you that it should be the default, > but we can do that for you. It would be for our everyday low price of > $6044629098073145873530880 per month, first month prepaid. Yes, > that's six septillion, forty-four sextillion, six hundred twenty-nine > queen-... quintillion... Are you there? Hello? We actually do have > a 15% discount package! Hello?!" > > The article then proceeds to describe some snake oil "solution" (the > CAT part) that would "go one step further, essentially saying, > `Pardon, NAT, but what's that behind you?'" (Microsoft characters > replaced with ASCII, again). > > The important thing to realize here is that there are many people who > read "THE PREMIER MAGAZINE OF BROADBAND TECHNOLOGY" and absorb the > infinite wisdom of its Techology Analysts. > > Boy, am I glad I don't have to deal with a cable company! > > "Cable... Where idiotic business models and complete lack of > understanding of networks are combined!" > > P.S.: Just to be clear, the other problem that the article finds with > NAT is that it enables you to share your connection with neighbors. > > -- > Stanislav Shalunov http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/ > > "Nuclear war would really set back cable [television]." -- Ted Turner > >
