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

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?

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: trying to reconcile two threads, (continued) Re: trying to reconcile two threads, Tony Hansen Re: trying to reconcile two threads, Anthony Atkielski Re: trying to reconcile two threads, Matt Crawford Re: trying to reconcile two threads, Brian E Carpenter Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP, Ed Gerck Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP, Joe Touch Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP, John Stracke Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP, Keith Moore Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP, Matt Crawford Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP, Keith Moore Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP, Anthony Atkielski <= Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP, jamal Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP, Claus Färber Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP, Bill Sommerfeld Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP, John Stracke RE: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP, Francois D. Menard RE: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP, Gene Hastings Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP, Michael H. Warfield Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP, Aaron Falk Re: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP, Joe Touch