On Fri, 3 May 2002, Avleen Vig wrote:
> Ha! I've been in Burbank (in the Valley north of LA) for 7 months now, I
> moved here from London. I've looked and looked and looked for *ANYTHING*
> other than the odd gas station or supermarket open passed 9pm!
??
Plenty of gas stations around here ope
On Fri, 3 May 2002, michael thomas guldan wrote:
> > >
> > > It's prevalent elsewhere. I'd be surprised if there aren't more GSM
> > > subscribers in the world than non-GSM subscribers.
> >
> > GSM is *the* standard in Europe. Australia, Korea, Japan and a couple
> > other Pacific-Rim countri
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:27:51PM -0400, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
>
> >
> > It's prevalent elsewhere. I'd be surprised if there aren't more GSM
> > subscribers in the world than non-GSM subscribers.
>
> GSM is *the* standard in Europe. Australia, Korea, Japan and a couple
> other Pacific-Rim c
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Scott Francis wrote:
> that is an excellent idea. I know one thing I would LOVE to have is a search
> engine that can answer my question, "Where can I find a coffee house
> {optionally: with 802.11b} open after midnight during the week in Los
> Angeles {optionally: the Valley
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:29:32AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> On Fri, 03 May 2002 00:12:34 PDT, Scott Francis said:
>
> > Your phone can surf porn? Maybe the technology revolution has finally arriv=
> > ed
> > after all ...
>
> No, it's still in the "dancing bear" stage. There's the quest
On Fri, 03 May 2002 00:12:34 PDT, Scott Francis said:
> Your phone can surf porn? Maybe the technology revolution has finally arriv=
> ed
> after all ...
No, it's still in the "dancing bear" stage. There's the question of whether
it's worth doing on that class display device
On the other h
blowing first.
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 3. mája 2002 9:13
> To: Dan Hollis
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
>
>
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 04:56:40PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
&
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 04:56:40PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
> > I'm not buying a phone I can't run ssh from. End of story. My current phone
> > does all that and more. Why step back into the dark ages of analog-type
> > services?
>
> The average customer doesn't even know what teln
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 04:44:28PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> At 01:20 AM 5/2/2002 -0700, Scott Francis wrote:
>
> >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 PHO
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 05:09:15PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
> 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
> a
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Jake Khuon wrote:
> Time to start thinking a little further down the line. What if the phone
> actually becomes an wireless IP gateway router?
Yuck. Current WAP-based phones can't even do websites well.
I've not been privy to 3G tests, so I don't know if GPRS/CDMA 1x does
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Joe Abley wrote:
> The concern exists regardless of the specifics of the always-on,
> cellular packet radio protocols being used, surely?
You're right, of course. I was focusing on the wrong thing when I replied.
> > [GSM coverage is patchy in the US]
>
> It's prevalent
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 cause
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Simon Higgs wrote:
> At 01:20 AM 5/2/2002 -0700, Scott Francis wrote:
> >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.
> I'm not b
Why do you need a public IP to do ssh?
jm
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Higgs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 4:44 PM
> To: Scott Francis
> Cc: Peter Bierman; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
>
>
>
&
At 01:20 AM 5/2/2002 -0700, Scott Francis wrote:
>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.
I'm not buying a phone I can't run ssh from. End of stor
On Wed, 1 May 2002 11:00:01 -0400 (EDT)
mike harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Almost? I'd say it's hands down an EXCELLENT reason. In some configs
> though, the NAT'd people can still see each other and cause problems,
> but it still cuts down the exposure.
As well as perpetuates the neg
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 02:22:40AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
> >> 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 ne
On Thu, 02 May 2002 01:50:50 PDT, Jake Khuon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> God forbid! We might have a network on our hands!
That's called "wearable computing". And it goes in your pocket so your
hands are free, ;)
msg01377/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
### On Thu, 2 May 2002 11:15:00 +0200, "Daniska Tomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
### casually decided to expound upon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the following
### thoughts about "RE: Large ISPs doing NAT? ":
DT> you will end up with exactly two exactly specified service
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 -
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 buy
> -Original Message-
> From: Jake Khuon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 2. mája 2002 10:51
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
>
>
> DT> and what if one of the devices behind that phone would also be a
> DT> personal &qu
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 01:32:16AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> ### On Thu, 2 May 2002 01:20:40 -0700, Scott Francis
> ### <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> casually decided to expound upon Peter Bierman
> ### <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the following thoughts about "Re: Large IS
### On Thu, 2 May 2002 10:42:01 +0200, "Daniska Tomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
### casually decided to expound upon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the following
### thoughts about "RE: Large ISPs doing NAT? ":
DT> and what if one of the devices behind that phone would also b
> -Original Message-
> From: Jake Khuon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 2. mája 2002 10:32
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
>
>
>
>
> Time to start thinking a little further down the line. What
> if the phone actual
### On Thu, 2 May 2002 01:20:40 -0700, Scott Francis
### <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> casually decided to expound upon Peter Bierman
### <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the following thoughts about "Re: Large ISPs
### doing NAT?":
SF> The average customer buying a "web-enabled"
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:07:34PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
> >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 wit
On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 10:33 , Steven J. Sobol wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 May 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
>> 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 th
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
> 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.
The only people who'd be deploying GPRS are G
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Beckmeyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
>
> I think a lot of the GRPS stuff is heading towards IPv6 w/IPv4
> gatewaying.
>
> The NAT issue has certainly resulted in a quite a few dis
Deepak Jain wrote:
> MY question is -- How do you know if a justification for _public_ space
> handling a large NAT'd pool is the proper size and not an over/under
> allocation based on the customer in question?
Why is the answer to this question any different than it has been since
BCP-12? Th
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
neve
I think a lot of the GRPS stuff is heading towards IPv6 w/IPv4
gatewaying.
The NAT issue has certainly resulted in a quite a few disgruntled
satellite customers (I'm thinking here primarily of direcpc.com) who're
willing to put up with the large latencies, but get really irate when
their apps wo
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
On Wed, 01 May 2002 14:55:02 PDT, Eliot Lear said:
> 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.
Ther
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.
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 comp
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
> Almost? I'd say it's hands down an EXCELLENT reason. In some configs
> though, the NAT'd people can still see each other and cause problems,
> but it still cuts down the exposure.
I've received a couple off-list replies about containment within the
NAT'
Almost? I'd say it's hands down an EXCELLENT reason. In some configs
though, the NAT'd people can still see each other and cause problems,
but it still cuts down the exposure.
Presumably, the people it would cause problems for would be the customers of
someone getting paid to care about
> > of unadministered, always-on boxes that aren't supposed to be running
> > inbound services in unrouted space would save all of us headaches.
>
> That's almost a better justification for NAT than address-space conservation. ;)
Almost? I'd say it's hands down an EXCELLENT reason. In some conf
On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:13:11 PDT, kevin graham said:
> Given the bellowing over some of the allocations in 24/8 that have been
> heard here before, it would seem to be welcome. Sticking large numbers
> of unadministered, always-on boxes that aren't supposed to be running
> inbound services in unro
> On Monday, 2002-04-29 at 08:43 MST, Beckmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is anybody here doing NAT for their customers?
Tony Rall:
> If you're NATing your customers you're no longer an ISP. You're a
> sort-of-tcp-service-provider (maybe a little udp too). NAT (PAT even more
Depends on
>On Monday, 2002-04-29 at 08:43 MST, Beckmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is anybody here doing NAT for their customers?
>I hope not.
there are a lot of them in Japan. including large ISP, small ISP,
CATV connectivity and apartment connectivity. I really hope the
sit
> and then you have those 'pdp-contexts' or how they call it. it's just
> another acronym for a vpn... if a corporate user requires full ip
> connectivity then why not give him a vpn uplink directly to their hq
This is probably impractical -- just try to (consistently) get your DSL
provider to
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Rall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 30. apríla 2002 19:59
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, 2002-04-29 at 08:43 MST, Beckmeyer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday, 2002-04-29 at 08:43 MST, Beckmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is anybody here doing NAT for their customers?
I hope not.
If you're NATing your customers you're no longer an ISP. You're a
sort-of-tcp-service-provider (maybe a little udp too). NAT (PAT even more
so) breaks so many
> It's a lack of IP Address Space - and the numbers I gave - 10's of
> thousands are probably a bit on the small side - in short order it will
> be multiples of 100,000 IP addresses.
That's a small quantity. Just fill our your RIR's form, and if you need
the space, you'll get it. T
On 4/29/02 9:08 AM, "Beckmeyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marshall et al,
>
> It's a lack of IP Address Space
Last I looked there was plenty of address space.
> - and the numbers I gave - 10's of
> thousands are probably a bit on the small side - in short order it will
> be multiples of 100
y blowing first.
> -Original Message-
> From: Beckmeyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 29. apríla 2002 18:08
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Large ISPs doing NAT?
>
>
>
> Marshall et al,
>
> It's a lack of IP Address Spac
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:08:16 -0700
Beckmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Marshall et al,
>
Dear JB;
1.) Dare I suggest that you use IPv6 ? It should make a
great NAT.
2.) If you are interested in having content put on your
wireless devices I would like to talk off line.
Regards
Marshall
Marshall et al,
It's a lack of IP Address Space - and the numbers I gave - 10's of
thousands are probably a bit on the small side - in short order it will
be multiples of 100,000 IP addresses. To start with, I'm willing to
think in terms of 10's of thousands spread over a handful of "POPs".
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:43:11 -0700
Beckmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is anybody here doing NAT for their customers?
>
> I'm looking at a situation where I may have to provide
> NAPT for tens of
> thousands of users and am curious as to what hardware is
> being used, how
> well it scal
53 matches
Mail list logo
