> John C Klensin wrote:
> It is simply not possible to configure those devices
> to support use of static public addresses for hosts
> on the LAN side.
First, this is totally false, see below. Second, if you want to use
public IPs on the LAN side you just have to plug your hosts directly in
the back of the {DSL|whatever} modem. Or use the firewall of your
choice.
> This situation would somewhat contaminate the results
> of the survey you suggest above.
Not at all, see above. Plus, read below also.
> It is worth noting in this context that many of the Router
> products that are sold for SOHO use (including the high-end
> products from the first two vendors listed above) (Linksys,
> Netgear) do not provide any support for multiple static
> addresses except via one-to-one NAT.
This is simply NOT true. Large numbers of SOHO "routers" can operate
with or without NAT and yes including the high-end products from the
first two vendors listed above.
Linksys RV042: http://tinyurl.com/zf7o8
Netgear FVG318: http://www.netgear.com/products/details/FVG318.php
And this is the norm. The one I use right now:
http://www.broadxent.com/products/8120.asp
and many more:
http://www.sonicwall.com/totalsecure/ts10.html
http://www.netopia.com/equipment/routers/routers_models.html
I have seen some of the speedstreams too and they all had an option to
run with or without NAT. Many of them also have the option to have a
"bridge" mode allowing the customer to provide their own router/firewall
solution.
> These are not ISP-imposed limitations, but limitations
> imposed by commercially-available products.
Please stop spreading disinformation. The proof is in the pudding, just
click on the links above. Maybe actually looking at what's out there
would help too.
Michel.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf