Subject: Re: IPv6 Comment
To: Feico Dillema <email@example.com>
From: Jared D. McNeill <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/04/2000 20:59:03
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Feico Dillema wrote:
> > I'm using a similar service (24 hr bi-directional 10mbps), and my ISP uses
> > NAT. Everything's working fine, and the speeds are great.
> Yeah, great for traditional Web-surfing and such. But does your ISP
> allow (or plans to) you to run servers at home? Does your ISP provide
I run a few servers already. No problems whatsoever (in fact, my
mailserver is running on a box at home).
> you (or plans to) IP-telephony service, video-conferencing, decent
> quality TV and radio broadcasting? Can you rent and play DVD movies
Digital Cable TV is being tested in certain areas; the whole goal of this
service from the beginning was for the telephone company (aka my ISP) to
be able to offer Cable TV, Telephone, and Internet all over the same wire.
> from your ISPs servers? Do they have a 100 thousand customers or
> plan their network for a 100000 customer a year growth rate? Did they
> just get hold of a UMTS license to provide high-speed mobile connectivity
> and telephony with their net? I think you would at least answer no to one
I honestly don't have a clue, you'd have to talk to them. There are quite
a few customers though (some HFC (10mbps both ways, what I have), and some
are ADSL (2mbit down, 640kbit up; I heard rumours of VDSL
soon). Everybody's behind the NAT.
> or two of the above. I'd answer yes to all the above for the ISP I'm working
> for. These things all are NAT-unfriendly or better NAT is unfriendly
> to such a setting, if not plain hostile.
When the service was first offered a few years ago, there were quite a few
programs that didn't work properly. Now, the only thing that doesn't work
properly are sending files on IRC with DCC (which can be worked around
> NAT is not an option for them inside their core-net. NATPT at 100Gbs
> switching speed? I don't think so.
> NAT is an option and necessity for client home-networks with more
> than one PC (ordinary customers don't easily get more than one semi-static
> IP-address) but that's not saving much address space anymore. This
> ISP alone burns one or two B-class sized nets a year already, and it
> just started its expansian into neighbouring countries. And this is
> just one young ISP which competes with ADSL-providing telco's and
> Cable-providers which burn address space in similar ways. Believe me
> it makes RIPE nervous already, and makes them put IPv6 higher and
> higher on their agenda.
I wasn't trying to convince you that NAT was a better solution; just
giving an example where NAT has worked. NBTel isn't a small ISP either,
they're a fairly large company, and their service is great for everything
that I do.