Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP

To: "Matt Crawford" <crawdad at fnal.gov>, "Keith Moore" <moore at cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony at atkielski.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:43:02 +0100
Cc: <ietf at ietf.org>
References: <200111281736.fASHasl07040@gungnir.fnal.gov>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

Matt writes:

> Have you looked at any of these ISP's contracts?
> Just accessing common web-based consumer applications
> on a single host violates their letter!

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  Can you provide any examples?

References:
- Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP
  - From: Matt Crawford

Prev by Date: Re: trying to reconcile two threads
Next by Date: Re: trying to reconcile two threads
Previous by thread: Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP
Next by thread: Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.