Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt

From: "Eric Klein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:55:46 +0300

> Fred Baker Wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 9, 2005, at 9:36 PM, Daniel Senie wrote:
> >
> > > Section 2.6: Please provide citations and statistics for the use of
> > > NAT and RFC1918 in the delivery of ISP services. Though this is
> > > talked about throughout this document, the practice is rare in at
> > > least some regions. Hard data would lend credence to this claim.
> > > Since this claim is used to justify many things in this document,
> > > the lack of citations gives the appearance of a strawman construct.
> >
> > While I don't have specific statistics, as this would require access
> > ot a lot of networks and the NDAs that accompany such, I do know that
> > the practice is common in Africa and parts of Asia. At one time,
> > China Unicom (which last year delivered over a billion voice minutes
> > using VoIP over an IP/ATM fiber backbone) used three layers of NATs,
> > citing inability to obtain IPv4 addresses as the primary reason. They
> > have since directly joined APNIC, I'm told, and may no longer do that.
> >

 I am not sure about all regions / nations, but I do know that in the
 following countries (names withheld due to NDA) there are several companies
 that are using NAT to separate internal private networks infrastructure and
 management from the Publicly aces:

 In the United States there are at least 4 fixed line phone companies, 2
long
 distance, and 1 Utility company
 In the UK there are at least 2 cellular and 2 fixed companies
 In Israel there are at least 3 long distance, 2 cellular and the national
 carrier
 In the Netherlands there is one carrier

 Eric