Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
At 11:34 AM -0700 5/2/02, Scott Francis wrote: >> And what if I want to invent the next big thing? A game, that people play >> in real time, with their palm-sized gizmo. What if that game can't be made >> scalable unless those devices have real IPs? What if that game is the >> catalyst that causes a million more customers to go buy a gizmo from >> Cingular? > >That's a lot of "if"s. As one other person wrote, IPv6 will probably be the >answer here - the only question is, how long it will be before it becomes de >facto (i.e. all standard networks support and transit it, by default), and >how much pain we will have to endure before this is the case. Well, I'm looking at it from Cingular's perspective. They want to roll out a new service. They want to make more money off it than from the old service. They're willing to invest a bunch of money in new equipment if it means they'll get enough people to sign up to pay for it. This service is called GPRS. If IPv6 is the answer, and it isn't available until the _next_ itteration of this process, then _this_ itteration isn't going to be as profitable as it could be. Cingular isn't going to redesign their backend a year from now just because IPv6 is suddenly usable. Mobile-IP devices are all about bringing the Internet to your pocket. That doesn't mean just the web! The web is UI optimized for a desktop machine. Who knows what specific applications might be developed for a user accessing the Internet from a device the size of a bar of soap? What if I want to write CUSeeMe for mobile phones? Or a scavanger hunt game? Something that takes advantage of the mobility rarely found by a desktop user? It is these _form factor specific_ applications that will drive the sales of devices that utilize this new network. Surfing the web is just the tip of the iceberg that everyone already understands. If that's the only application enabled by GPRS, then I don't forsee GPRS phones selling in leaps and bounds. It seems like providers would be spending a whole lot of money to upgrade their network for just one new application that only a few customers are asking for. >> I have yet to see any good argument for why mobile-IP providers should use >> NAT instead of routable space. And no, "because they might get rooted" is >> not a good reason. That's the responsibility of the device designers, NOT >> THE NETWORK. > >And I still have yet to hear a convincing argument for why _right now_, NAT >is not, at the least, a workable solution to this issue. It can surely hold >us for a year or three until IPv6 has become the standard. (that timeframe >may be a bit optimistic ...) Given current devices and technology, why is NAT >not a temporary solution? A temporary solution to what problem? Assuming the network can distribute NATed addresses, why can't it distribute real ones? Maybe I'm missing something. John Beckmeyer didn't say why they were looking into using NAT, he only asked if anyone else was using it on this scale. The presumption of the first several responders was that it was to conserve addresses, which they pointed out is not actually necessary. I'm hoping that was the case, and that maybe the choice of NAT can be revisited... -pmb
RE: Large ISPs doing NAT?
At 11:15 AM +0200 5/2/02, Daniska Tomas wrote: > >no eye-shutting. it's just about considering HOW MANY (or WHAT PART) of >your users will need the 'full' service. if you have 95% of bfu's with >web+mail phones or pda's then nat is completely ok for them. and those 5% >(if so many ever) phreaks - give them an opportunity to have public ip >with no nat for a few bucks more > >you will end up with exactly two exactly specified services... not that >bad, is it? If no applications need the "few bucks more" service, no one will pay for it. If no one pays for it, no one will write applications that need it. Chicken or Egg? You decide. -pmb
Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
At 1:20 AM -0700 5/2/02, Scott Francis wrote: >On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:07:34PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> >> You've got to be kidding. Do you think it's clear to the average consumer >> buying a GPRS phone what NAT is, and why they might or might not want it? > >The average customer buying a "web-enabled" phone doesn't need a >publicly-routeable IP. I challenge anybody to demonstrate why a cell phone >needs a public IP. It's a PHONE, not a server. And what if I want to invent the next big thing? A game, that people play in real time, with their palm-sized gizmo. What if that game can't be made scalable unless those devices have real IPs? What if that game is the catalyst that causes a million more customers to go buy a gizmo from Cingular? If providers assume that GPRS devices are all just "web-enabled phones", then that's all they will _ever_ be, and no one will care, and no one will buy them. If all I want is a PHONE, not a server, I can buy that today (and Cingular doesn't have to spend millions to deply a whole new backend.) IMHO, the attitude of "we already know what services you want" is at odds with the intent of the Internet, and exactly the BS that Telcos have been feeding customers for years. I have yet to see any good argument for why mobile-IP providers should use NAT instead of routable space. And no, "because they might get rooted" is not a good reason. That's the responsibility of the device designers, NOT THE NETWORK. -pmb
Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
At 3:03 PM -0700 5/1/02, Scott Francis wrote: >On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 02:55:02PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> >> I don't know if this is an annual argument yet, but the frog is in the >> pot, and the flame is on. Guess who's playing the part of the frog? >> Answer: ISPs who do this sort of thing. Value added security is a nice >> thing. Crippling Internet connections will turn the Internet into the >> phone company, where only the ISP gets to say what services are good and >> which ones are bad. While an ISP might view it appealing to be a baby >> bell, remember from whence we all come: the notion that the middle should >> not inhibit the endpoints from doing what they want. You find this to be >> a support headache? Offer a deal on Norton Internet Security or some >> such. Offer to do rules merges. Even offer a provisioning interface to >> some access-lists. Just make sure that when that next really fun game is >> delivered on a play station that speaka de IP your customers can play it, >> and that you haven't built a business model around them not being able to >> play it. > >As long as it is _clear_ from the get-go that customers behind NAT are >getting that service, and not publicly-routable IP space, I don't see the >problem. If they don't like it, they don't have to sign up to begin with - as >long as there is no doubt as to what kind of service they're getting, there >shouldn't be a problem (legally, at any rate). You've got to be kidding. Do you think it's clear to the average consumer buying a GPRS phone what NAT is, and why they might or might not want it? Do you think the use of NAT will be explained to these customers? Or clearly stated in 5pt text on page 17 of the service agreement? IMHO, as one of the people who will likely be using Cingular's GPRS network with a Danger HipTop, I _strongly_ hope they choose to use routable address space instead of NAT. I would hate for NAT to be an impediment to some cool new app no one has thought of yet because these gizmos aren't in widespread use yet. >This is not to say that if, as Eliot posits, the next Big Thing on the market >requires public IPs that your customer base won't all jump ship. That's a >risk that providers will have to weigh against the benefits of NAT. I'm more concerned that if the major metropolitan markets deploying GPRS all use NAT, then the Next Big Thing won't ever happen on GPRS devices. Customers won't jump ship if they have no where to jump to. That might sound attractive to the bean counters, but think of the customers you might never get in the first place. Also, I don't see how deploying NAT could be a cost savings over requesting real IP space. -pmb -- Ring around the Internet, | Peter Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Packet with a bit not set | http://www.sfgoth.com/pmb/ SYN ACK SYN ACK, |"Nobody realizes that some people expend We all go down. -A. Stern | tremendous energy merely to be normal."-Al Camus
