Jay R. Ashworth writes...
>
> That's why everyone is abandoning traditionals ISPs and going with proxy
> providers like AOL.
Um, "Huh, Phil?"
Following the Boardwatch ISP directory, for just one source, seems to
indicate otherwise.
This is a fairly sweeping observation... on what sources do you base
it?
Oops. Forgot the smiley.
My point being that large numbers of people really do want out of the
Internet that which end-to-end addressing can give them, even if they
are clueless about how things work to get what they want.
Test market a dialup service at a reduced rate that gives people a
private space address behind a proxy server. See how many people
sign up. IMHO, it won't be all that many.
[ CC'd direct, because I don't know if you subscribed or not. ]
Jay R. Ashworth writes...
>
> >
> > That's why everyone is abandoning traditionals ISPs and going with proxy
> > providers like AOL.
>
> Um, "Huh, Phil?"
>
> Following the Boardwatch ISP directory, for just one source, seems to
> indicate otherwise.
>
> This is a fairly sweeping observation... on what sources do you base
> it?
Oops. Forgot the smiley.
Oh. Yup. Got it.
My point being that large numbers of people really do want out of the
Internet that which end-to-end addressing can give them, even if they
are clueless about how things work to get what they want.
Yup. Everyone thinks they can tinker with fundamental aspects of the
architecture of the net without breaking the ineffable qualities that
made it get so popular in the first place.
Unfortunately, no one can be exactly certain which combination of
things it _is_ that's done this...
Test market a dialup service at a reduced rate that gives people a
private space address behind a proxy server. See how many people
sign up. IMHO, it won't be all that many.
I concur.
This will be my last reply on the topic CC'd to NANOG; interested parties,
trundle on over to the NODlist.
Cheers,
-- jra
Phil Howard <phil@charon.milepost.com> writes:
Test market a dialup service at a reduced rate that gives people a
private space address behind a proxy server.
No, implement NAT in such a way that you can roll this
service out without anyone noticing, except in the
difficult case where an "inside" and "outside" address
collision is triggered by using IP addresses rather than
DNS names.
Then once you've rolled it out, you can assign static IP
addresses, large address ranges, and other popular
shopping-list items that a number of users seem to want,
to the extent that they are a market differentiator that
in the absence of NAT favours less-conserving ISPs.
Sean.
Large address ranges, yes. But the people who want static addresses,
by and large, want them precisely _because_ they are routable and
visible.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Cheers,
- -jra
Apologies, NANOG; I meant to clip you from this CC list.
Cheers,
-- jra