[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: why market picked up NATs [Re: Writeups on why RFC1918 is bad?]



> It's even worse than that. If you are residential user, try finding a
> home router that is actually a Real Router. I've come to the
> unfortunate conclusion that they no longer exist.  The market
> landscape has shifted dramatically. All home routers come with NAT
> builtin and the functionality can simply _NOT_ be disabled.

Hmm - must be the $50 routers and the cheapest service.

The box I got installed last week as part of a DSL install (which is
"SOHO class" i.e. not the cheapest on the market) is
not only a real router, but when you disable NAT it has a default
firewall policy (outbound only connections).

To get this setup by the ISP all I had to do is tell them that
I need public IPv4 address space by filling in a form, and
then they spent 10 seconds to put that address space range in the router.

> My ISP (after having supposedly done research) says
> this is the case for all home routers. To get a real router would seem
> to cost a lot more (i.e, low hundreds of $$).

My cost $149 with a $149 mailin rebate = zero. Cheap enough for me.

But different regions and countries are likely to have different competitive
pressure; my attempts at getting non-NATed service in France failed and
UDP tunneling came to my rescue.

  Erik


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------