On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 11:13:43AM -0500, RJ Atkinson wrote: > > (NB: This doesn't directly relate to IRTF RRG work, but it does > relate to routing & addressing futures, so the IAB RAM list > seems to be the right venue for this narrow observation and > any followup discussion that might occur.) > > I recently became aware of a large residential broadband operator > in North America that provides no global-scope IP addresses to > its customers. By default there are no global-scope IP addresses > -- and none are available as an option at any price to residential > broadband subscribers to this particular service. > > Instead, this operator deploys a combination/integrated home > gateway at each customer site. This gateway is managed exclusively > by the network operator. The only customer option (at time > of installation) is whether wireless is enabled or not. This > gateway performs NAT/NAPT, has an 802.11 wireless service on the > customer side with WEP and WPA (but NOT 802.11i or WPA2), and > uses DHCP to distribute private (RFC-1918; specifically 192.168.x/24) > IP addresses to whatever devices the customer has on offer. > This CPE box also includes a 4-port Ethernet hub on the inside > of the NAT/NAPT to connect to any wired networks in the house. > Further, there are sundry additional packet/port filters inside > this CPE box. > > The net result is that this particular operator isn't really > providing a "dialtone IP" service. Instead, it is more nearly > a "only web and email access" service. For example, there are > widespread reports that online gaming (e.g. using XBOX) does > not work with this service. There are also complaints online > about how various uncommonly used transport-layer ports seem > to be blocked. The most commonly used ports (DNS, HTTP, HTTPS, > IMAP4, SMTP, POP3) appear to work through this CPE box. Of > course, VoIP is also blocked -- though this operator does offer > POTS lines via a separate adapter located at the customer premise. > > It is unclear to me whether/how this CPE integrated/combination > home gateway is addressed. One could imagine the CPE box being > inside 10.0/8 and individual customers being inside 192.168.x/24 > with NAT/NAPT in the CPE box and then again at some larger gateway > between the local region of this service and the public again. > I don't know for certain whether the CPE box is addressed by > IP, whether it has a private IP address, or whether it has a > global-scope IP address. > > > NOTE WELL: > The operator has no issues with IPv4 address availability. This > is simply how they chose to define their service offering. They > market it as "High-speed Internet". They believe that customers > actually prefer to have the operator provide this narrower service > rather than a "dial-tone IP" service. > > > TWO QUICK OBSERVATIONS: > If this becomes a widely used deployment model, and customers accept > this, then there are at least two implications to consider: > 1) IPv4 Address shortages might not be as big an issue as some think. > 2) New services really are only deployable over HTTP/HTTPS. > Nearly any other new protocol, NAT/NAPT-friendly or not, > would likely not be usable by these end users. > > Ran, > I find the whole thing quite curious and unexpected. I am sure > that other folks mileage likely will vary somehwat from my own. Interestingly, Vince Fuller has been predicting this outcome for years. Dave
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ RAM mailing list RAM at iab.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram