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@xxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf