Re: Number of Firewall/NAT Users

[Henning Schulzrinne <schulzrinne at cs.columbia.edu>]

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:
> >Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu 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 ietf+censored at alvestrand.no, which
> is a sublist of ietf at ietf.org. Not all messages are passed.
> Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.