[c-nsp] large scale NAT/PAT solution

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
>[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of Gert Doering
>Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 1:10 AM
>To: Goran Gajic
>Cc: Gert Doering; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>Subject: Re: [c-nsp] large scale NAT/PAT solution
>
>
>Hi,
>
>On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 03:17:45AM +0200, Goran Gajic wrote:
>> Problem is that users are charged differenty if they are
>using real ip
>> addresses or if private ip addresses are NATed or PATed.
>
>This business model is fundamentally flawed.  NAT/PAT is more expensive
>for the ISP, so the users pay less.
>

I disagree.  If you can force all users behind NAT then their Windows
machines don't get infected with every new virus and trojan to come
around, thus you save a lot of bandwidth and a lot of support calls.

It is a lot easier if a user calls in with a problem where they need a
public IP to tell them the fix is to pay more money, than to deal with
a frantic user who's machine has just been smacked down into garbage
by the latest trojan.

>Furthermore, ISPs are not supposed to charge for IP address space (as
>per the RIPE guidelines that you all signed...).
>

News to me - where is this specifically?  Does RIPE not charge requestors
for IP address space themselves?

Ted