On 5-Apr-2006, at 11:09, Michel Py wrote:
Your argument does not hold water. Do a survey of customers who
have the
"advanced" or "pro" package (with higher speed and multiple static IP
addresses) and you will find that the very vast majority of them
(if not
all) use NAT anyway even though they have enough public addresses.
A survey of users where?
Arguments which shuttle backwards and forwards between people in
regions with different packaging of internet access services are
unlikely to bear fruit so long as the arguments concentrate on
assumptions about packaging.
Different ISPs package access in different ways.
Some do the NAT for you, in their network; some do the NAT in the CPE
equipment they supply; some don't do NAT for you at all. Some ISPs
provide only dynamic addresses, and distinguish their packages based
on speed; some ISPs have the option of static addresses, but only one
per subscriber; some ISPs can assign a subnet to a customer.
Some ISPs package their access services according to peak speed
available; some according to a contention ratio within their network
(or within the telco's network which they use to reach the customer).
Some ISPs provide a data cap. Some ISPs charge for volume. Some ISPs
restrict access speed when a volume threshold within a billing period
has been reached. Some ISPs bill according to data transferred; some
ISPs bill at a flat rate.
Some ISPs filter traffic towards their customers; some don't. Some
ISPs (apparently, possibly) deliberately introduce jitter and latency
into their access products to discourage customers from using VoIP.
Others don't.
Some ISPs are happy for people to run servers; some are not. Some
ISPs are happy for customers to announce their own address space to
them over DSL using BGP (I know this, since I am a customer of one of
them).
Some ISPs sell symmetric access services; others sell asymmetric
services. Some use cable; some use DSL; some use fibre; some use
wireless transmission; some use frame-relay or PPP or HDLC over
synchronous T1s or E1s.
Some ISPs compete for customers in an open market. Some ISPs don't
need to, because they have a natural monopoly in access. Some ISPs
have access to the copper; some ISPs are dependent on wholesale
products of telcos, and are perhaps limited in what they can provide
for that reason.
It's a rich tapestry. Assuming that what is available in one region
implies anything about what is available in other regions is
unproductive.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf