> On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Darryl (Dassa) Lynch wrote:
>
> > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > >>> From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>
> > >> There is a major difference between a NAT box plugged into
> > >> the real Internet and a NAT box plugged into another NAT
> > >> box. It is a pretty ugly one for the residential user.
> >
> > I'm afraid it is already happening on a large scale in some parts. Here in
> > Australia I've seen multiple ISP's who NAT all residential customers. Some
> > of them amongst the largest players in the market. Even some commercial
> > offerings are on NATs.
> >
> I've also encountered a local ISP who is using a NAT between their network
> and the 'world'. So there is at least one US based ISP who has adopted
> this approach.
Well they are not a ISP as far as I am concerned. If you
want you VoIP phone to work (accept calls) you need a real
address. Arranging to have VoIP work through a NAT which
you fully control is hard enough. Making it work through
a NAT that you don't control is almost impossible.
I suppect loss of services that remote / double nat causes
will be enough to kill this "solution".
Mark
> Dave Morris
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
