Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





--On Thursday, March 30, 2006 11:44 -0500 Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

However, we need to keep something else in mind, which
Iljitsch's note  hints at.  If I'm an ISP trying to sell a
low-end service to low-end  customers at a low  (but still
profitable) price, I need to cut customer  support costs to
the absolute minimum.  If someone calls up for help  with a
configuration problem, that may be six month's of profits
from  that customer eaten up in the cost of answering the
call.

I find myself wondering, don't they get support calls from
customers having to deal with the problems caused by the NATs?

Because they don't answer them. In the process of doing the work that led to RFC 4084, I reviewed the terms and conditions of service of a large number of ISPs in the US (and a few others) who provide low-cost Internet connectivity. Some prohibit connection of more than one machine to the incoming line/router/modem. Others provide a NAT-capable router but prohibit the customer from making any changes to its configuration and from running any applications that don't work in that environment. And still others indicate that customers can supply their own NATs, but must obtain any support elsewhere. All of these prohibitions are "enforced" the same way -- if the user calls with a problem, he or she either

(i) is told that there is no support for violations of the rules and offered the opportunity to be disconnected (often with a large "early termination fee") or

(ii) is instructed to disconnect all equipment between the machine in question and the router, and see if the problem still occurs. If it doesn't, then the ISP has no problem and the customer's problem is of no interest.

For the community, there are elements of "you get what you
pay for" in  this.  And, for the ISPs, unless we figure out
ways to provide the same  level of support convenience with
public addresses, we will certainly  see NATs with IPv6 as
well as IPv4.

either that, or IPv6 will be seen as something that is
"business use only".

That possibility had not occurred to me, but I fear you are correct.

    john



_______________________________________________

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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]