On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Darryl (Dassa) Lynch wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com]
There is a major difference between a NAT box plugged into
the real Internet and a NAT box plugged into another NAT
box. It is a pretty ugly one for the residential user.
I'm afraid it is already happening on a large scale in some parts. Here in
Australia I've seen multiple ISP's who NAT all residential customers. Some
of them amongst the largest players in the market. Even some commercial
offerings are on NATs.
I've also encountered a local ISP who is using a NAT between their network
and the 'world'. So there is at least one US based ISP who has adopted
this approach.
Well they are not a ISP as far as I am concerned. If you
want you VoIP phone to work (accept calls) you need a real
address. Arranging to have VoIP work through a NAT which
you fully control is hard enough. Making it work through
a NAT that you don't control is almost impossible.
I suppect loss of services that remote / double nat causes
will be enough to kill this "solution".
Mark
Dave Morris
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf