Much as I understand the moral outrage that NATs cause in some people's
mind, NATs are still a reality AND they (usually anyway) provide
connectivity to the Internet. Have you tried using a hotelroom Ethernet
port or a WiFi network recently? I can't remember the last time I was
assigned something that looked like a "real" routable IP address, but
as a consumer of paid-for Internet service (that works) is there any
reason (apart from religion) that I should care??
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Academic Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Hadmut Danisch;
Do you think a NAT provider an ISP?
But if we had a precise definition and a taxonomy of the
different classes of ISPs,
Then, all the IP and non-IP providers can now leagaly (some
illegaly a little beyond the scope of so generous RFC) say
they are ISPs and most end users have no chance to know the
differences of the taxonomy.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf