> On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Darryl (Dassa) Lynch wrote: > > > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > >>> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] > > >> > > >> 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@xxxxxxxx > 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@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf