[125526] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Mon Apr 19 11:01:12 2010
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <871veb4hrr.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:00:27 -0400
To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: jabley@hopcount.ca
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2010-04-19, at 10:51, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Nick Hilliard:
>=20
>> On 19/04/2010 16:14, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
>>> The eyeball ISPs will find it trivial to NAT should they ever need =
to do
>>> so [...]
>=20
>> Having made this bold claim, have you ever actually tried to run a =
natted
>> eyeball network? The last two natted eyeball networks I worked with =
could
>> never figure out which aspect of NAT hurt more: the technical side or =
the
>> business side.
>=20
> I'm pretty sure the acceptance of NAT varies regionally. I think
> there's a large ISP in Italy which has been doing NAT since the 90s.
> So it's not just the mobile domain.
I haven't been a customer of an ISP in New Zealand for a long time now, =
but people there tell me that there is an expectation of NAT when you =
sign up for DSL service. Nobody normally expects to be handed a =
globally-unique v4 address.
Joe
