From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Drage Subject: Re: Completely NAT an ISP: A practical possibility? Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 00:17:45 +0100 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.samba.org Message-ID: <20020616001745.N2090@funkyjesus.org> References: <3D0BBC45.5000807@palaver.net> <200206152233.g5FMXPA27757@Networker.rockstone.co.uk> Reply-To: Nick Drage Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200206152233.g5FMXPA27757@Networker.rockstone.co.uk>; from Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk on Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 11:33:23PM +0100 Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.samba.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: netfilter@lists.samba.org On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 11:33:23PM +0100, Antony Stone wrote: > On Saturday 15 June 2002 11:14 pm, Brian Capouch wrote: > > I wonder if the sages on this list might share advice as to whether or > > not it might be practical to maintain a working ISP where ALL client > > machines use private IP addresses, which are then NAT-ted to public IP > > space as necessary by iptables. > > > > The biggest drawback that has been voiced so far is that many > > peer-to-peer apps would break, but I'm not so sure right now that is bad > > thing. > > Some current ISPs already do this, and I guess the popularity with their > customers varies according to what the customers want to do :-) Can you name any ISPs that do this? I haven't seen it in my limited experience. -- FunkyJesus System Administration Team