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(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)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(_dot_)no, which
is a sublist of ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) Not all messages are passed.
Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.