From: Steve Noble [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 5:16 PM
> > Now on the other hand by saying "and if it's smaller
then a /20 you will
> > be filtered" you cause undue pressure on people to
"spin" their designs in
> > ways to show that they can use a /20 and get the
allocation from ARIN
> > directly.
> you mean not use nat? should i be broken-hearted?
NAT?!? You are obviously not understanding the point I was
The point was that companies may not need more then a /24 to
entire site on, yet may be pushed to say they have more in order to
acquire a /20 from ARIN, just to be globally visable.
and randy's point is that the easiest way to do that, without lying through
your teeth, is to *not* use NAT, thereby increasing your visible foot-print
by the size of your NAT'd space.
If you were in a position where you did NOT have your own
swamp/b/a space, you wanted to multihome to a few different providers
in such a way that you were globally reachable no matter who
and you only needed a /24 or less, what would you do?
Avoid *any* technology that makes more efficient use of my address space.
Then I'd generate additional redundant services (legitimate and opertional,
just not used much) to fatten up the foot-print. About 25 Linux boxen,
implemented on BookPCs, ought to do the trick for a /19. Personally, I have
yet to be pushed to such a solution, but I've thought about it and I'm not
the only one. If the rules are set such that I have to do something like
that, or fold the company, I would do it in a heart-beat. There is a limit
to what I will sacrifice on the alter of "community spirit".