[125527] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Greco)
Mon Apr 19 11:03:10 2010
From: Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
To: fw@deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:01:25 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <871veb4hrr.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> from "Florian Weimer" at Apr
19, 2010 04:51:52 PM
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> * Nick Hilliard:
>
> > 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 [...]
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> It can be tricky to introduce a new NATted product and compete with
> established players which do not NAT, though.
It's another opportunity to monetize things. Give people the option of
a "real" IP address for $5 extra a month in case they actually need it
for gaming, etc., and default Grandma's average everyday connection to
NAT.
The eyeball ISP's definitely have the easier end of things.
... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
