Another ISP thread...

Jima jima at beer.tclug.org
Mon Apr 29 21:07:49 MDT 2013


On 2013-04-29 12:53, Nicholas Leippe wrote:
> With fully routable ip addresses you have no need for NAT on your router in
> the case you mention.

  If you have enough IP addresses, which for many American households, 
is not a viable approach.  Additionally, this approach is (in general) 
bad for the internet -- IPv4 depletion is happening fast enough without 
people using external IPs without good, solid rationale.

> The ISP would simply route all traffic destined for any address in your
> block to your router, and you simply configure your router's routing table
> and you're done.

  With Setup B, correct.  With Setup A, they're simply bridged onto your 
physical interface -- you can't route them without engaging in some 
shenanigans like proxy ARP or whatnot.

> Your message didn't clearly distinguish what setup A vs setup B was, so I'm
> not sure how to answer your last question.

  No, but the message to which Dan is was replying (see Corey Edwards' 
post from 2013-04-25) absolutely did.

      Jima


More information about the PLUG mailing list