RE: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering

"Templin, Fred L" <> Wed, 02 January 2008 16:18 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA6Ij-0003yw-EG; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:18:41 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA6Ih-0003xI-J7 for; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:18:39 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA6Ig-0004tW-VS for; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:18:39 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id m02GIWxn012016 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 2 Jan 2008 08:18:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m02GIWcv029244; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:18:32 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m02GIRXP029092; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:18:31 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 2 Jan 2008 08:18:30 -0800
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Subject: RE: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 08:18:29 -0800
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering
thread-index: AchNWn7LOnnKGN54QTu/N+2SWPk/ewAAH+KQ
References: <>
From: "Templin, Fred L" <>
To: "RJ Atkinson" <>, <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jan 2008 16:18:30.0091 (UTC) FILETIME=[1CD171B0:01C84D5B]
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 10ba05e7e8a9aa6adb025f426bef3a30
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Sounds like a use-case for Teredo [RFC4380]?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: RJ Atkinson [] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 8:14 AM
> To:
> Subject: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering
> (NB: This doesn't directly relate to IRTF RRG work, but it does
> relate to routing & addressing futures, so the IAB RAM list
> seems to be the right venue for this narrow observation and
> any followup discussion that might occur.)
> I recently became aware of a large residential broadband operator
> in North America that provides no global-scope IP addresses to
> its customers.  By default there are no global-scope IP addresses
> -- and none are available as an option at any price to residential
> broadband subscribers to this particular service.
> Instead, this operator deploys a combination/integrated home
> gateway at each customer site.  This gateway is managed exclusively
> by the network operator.  The only customer option (at time
> of installation) is whether wireless is enabled or not.  This
> gateway performs NAT/NAPT, has an 802.11 wireless service on the
> customer side with WEP and WPA (but NOT 802.11i or WPA2), and
> uses DHCP to distribute private (RFC-1918; specifically 192.168.x/24)
> IP addresses to whatever devices the customer has on offer.
> This CPE box also includes a 4-port Ethernet hub on the inside
> of the NAT/NAPT to connect to any wired networks in the house.
> Further, there are sundry additional packet/port filters inside
> this CPE box.
> The net result is that this particular operator isn't really
> providing a "dialtone IP" service.  Instead, it is more nearly
> a "only web and email access" service.  For example, there are
> widespread reports that online gaming (e.g. using XBOX) does
> not work with this service.  There are also complaints online
> about how various uncommonly used transport-layer ports seem
> to be blocked.  The most commonly used ports (DNS, HTTP, HTTPS,
> IMAP4, SMTP, POP3) appear to work through this CPE box.  Of
> course, VoIP is also blocked -- though this operator does offer
> POTS lines via a separate adapter located at the customer premise.
> It is unclear to me whether/how this CPE integrated/combination
> home gateway is addressed.  One could imagine the CPE box being
> inside 10.0/8 and individual customers being inside 192.168.x/24
> with NAT/NAPT in the CPE box and then again at some larger gateway
> between the local region of this service and the public again.
> I don't know for certain whether the CPE box is addressed by
> IP, whether it has a private IP address, or whether it has a
> global-scope IP address.
> The operator has no issues with IPv4 address availability.  This
> is simply how they chose to define their service offering.  They
> market it as "High-speed Internet".  They believe that customers
> actually prefer to have the operator provide this narrower service
> rather than a "dial-tone IP" service.
> If this becomes a widely used deployment model, and customers accept
> this, then there are at least two implications to consider:
>    1) IPv4 Address shortages might not be as big an issue as 
> some think.
>    2) New services really are only deployable over HTTP/HTTPS.
>       Nearly any other new protocol, NAT/NAPT-friendly or not,
>       would likely not be usable by these end users.
> I find the whole thing quite curious and unexpected.  I am sure
> that other folks mileage likely will vary somehwat from my own.
> Ran
> _______________________________________________
> RAM mailing list

RAM mailing list