Subject: Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?

From: Steve Hultquist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:18:23 GMT

Many of the people who have deployed NATs are responding directly to the
address scarcity (and resultant cost). If you consider that many ISPs now
have different pricing models for multiple IP addresses than they do for a
single (regardless of bandwidth used), it isn't surprising. I also think
that it's interesting to consider that security concerns are the other
primary reason for use of NAT.

ssh

                    Keith Moore                                                                                
                    <[email-masked]        To:     "Fleischman, Eric W" <[email-masked]>         
                    .edu>                cc:     Randy Bush <[email-masked]>, "'Brian E Carpenter'"             
                                         <[email-masked]>, Bill Manning <[email-masked]>, Pete Loshin 
                    11/29/1999           <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]                                      
                    11:08 AM             Subject:     Re: IP network address assignments/allocations           
                                         information?                                                          

> 1) If we effectively ran out of addresses when RFC 1597 was published,
> has running out of addresses hurt us in any way?

absolutely.  partially as a result of (perceived or actual) address
scarcity,
people have deployed NATs everywhere, and this has had an large adverse
effect on the Internet's ability to support certain types of applications -
particularly distributed applications (multi-party conferencing, games,
simulations, distributed computations) and applications where the "user"
end needs to be able to accept incoming traffic which is initiated
from "outside".  NATs also impair the reliability of the network because
they can discard address mappings for connections that are still being
used by applications.

Keith

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:06:55 -0600

Steve Hultquist wrote:
...
>  I also think

As had been repeatedly pointed out, this is a totally bogus argument
for NAT. Filtering routers were around long before NAT, and protect
systems against intrusion just as well as NAT.

  Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:06:55 -0600

Steve Hultquist wrote:
...

  Brian

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:02:21 -0500

> single (regardless of bandwidth used), it isn't surprising. 

no, not surprising (and in fact some people predicted it), but 
it is surely unfortunate.

> primary reason for use of NAT.

this is indeed used as a selling point for NATs, but it's just snake oil.
the security benefits of NAT are dubious at best.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:02:21 -0500

Keith

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 21:59:46 -0600

>it is surely unfortunate.

I can personally testify to the above comments. Consider...we are all IP 
professionals ...so we'd like to occasionally play with all of the 
wonderful toys we've built...at home. Our fathers stuck their heads under 
the hoods of cars or played with short wave radios...we play with IP.

Now try and ask your friendly neighborhood DSL or Cable Modem provider 
about getting a nice chunk of IP addresses. Well we all know what DSL 
really means ..._D_riveway _S_ite _L_iaison  or the modern version of "Who 
on first?".

You want to run a web server, DNS (from home?)  IPP printer accessible 
printer ( DUH what's IPP?), SIP phone .. pick your application.  To the 
service providers the request for IP addresses is some sort of strange 
signal that you're running a eCommerce site from home or worse a Game/Porn 
site. Something that they believe they should charge more money for.

The path of least resistance is just install a NAT. The market for NAT 
device/software products are being driven by in part the lack of IP4 
numbers but certainly the lack of knowledge, marketing skills or just plain 
greed of the ISP community.

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
eFAX Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax)
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : [email-masked]
GSTN Fax 314.918.9015
MediaGate iPost VoiceMail and Fax 800.260.4464
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 21:59:46 -0600

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC