Subject: Re: Bringing back Internet transparency

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 15:14:38 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>

    > The ISPs had a clear interest in killing of NAT which threatened the
    > ISP business model.

So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs wanted to kill
NAT, and I have other people telling me NAT was an intergral part of ISPs'
master plan to take over the universe.

Clearly you all both can't be right.

	Noel

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 10:21:32 +1000

In message <[email-masked]>, Noel Chiappa write
> Clearly you all both can't be right.

They want the extra dollars for extra address but the don't want
the support costs that would bring.  They sit at different points
for different sets of customers.

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 20:44:11 -0400

> Clearly you all both can't be right.

Not at all. It is entirely possible for them to be telling everyone else
not to use NAT because it is 'evul' while planning to deploy and use it
themselves.

In practice the two positions were separated in time by many years as my
ISP allowed me to use NAT ten years back and my current ISP actually
requires me to use a NAT box as the NAT capability is built into my cable
modem.

On the network neutrality thing, I think the arguments on both sides as
specious. The fundamental issue is whether ISPs will be permitted to
leverage local monopolies on the provision of broadband services to
establish monopolies in network services that depend on those monopoly
services.

Some people have ideological blinkers that tell them that the free market
solves all problems and since the markets in the US are free (they must be
because it says so in the constitution) there can be no monopoly issue.
Markets are not perfect, people need to get over that.

It seems reasonable to me that any party that has a local monopoly in
providing broadband services has to be regulated up the pattottie and the
same is true if the number of providers is effectively constrained. Network
neutrality is just a fix for a market failure situation.

If an ISP wants to have a pricing model where I get my 1x Internet
connection for $X but Sony can stream an HD movie to me at 10x by paying to
temporarily up my connection, that seems perfectly fine to me. If on the
other hand I am paying $Y for that 10x connection then the ISP has no
business demanding a double dip from Sony or whoever.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 08:28:08 +0200

> Clearly you all both can't be right.

ISPs were against NATs at first.   It was only later that they embraced them.

Keith

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:50:41 +0200

On 08/02/2013 08:28 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>> So this is rather amusing: you're trying to tell me that ISPs wanted to
>> kill NAT, and I have other people telling me NAT was an intergral part of
>> ISPs' master plan to take over the universe.
>> 

This mess is still the ISP fault.  If they gave users what they wanted, which
is multiple IP addresses, then they wouldn't have to install NAT (I am still
paying $9.95 per month for the privilege of having 4 additional IPv4 addresses
on my Comcast connection).  And that would have accelerated IPv6 deployment.

The firewall issue is orthogonal (which I put the blame on Microsoft sloppy
coding practices).

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: [email-masked]
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 09:24:32 +0200

> on my Comcast connection).  And that would have accelerated IPv6
Wierdly, I don't actually want to bridge my home network to my ISP nor
are they frankly likely to accommodate my need for a /27 without some
consideration, while there are plenty of ways that can be achieved with
IPv4 they have more friction and therefore cost for the isp and the
consumer then simply receiving one ip via dhcp and getting on with my 
life. it's also somewhat convenient when that primary provider is down
that the network can be hung off an LTE connection (renumbering isn't a
problem, dhcp can address that, getting one IP is).

My current CPE does DHCPv6 PD and comcast accommodates me accordingly. I
hope verizon LTE will eventually.
> The firewall issue is orthogonal (which I put the blame on Microsoft
Windows machines are not principally the devices on my homenet whose
code I don't trust. consumer electronics don't get a lot of software
updates.