[125576] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Mon Apr 19 22:25:40 2010
To: Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:22:02 EST."
<201004200022.o3K0M2Ba007459@aurora.sol.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:24:57 +1000
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In message <201004200022.o3K0M2Ba007459@aurora.sol.net>, Joe Greco writes:
> > That'd be easy if you were just starting up an ISP. What do you do with
> > your existing customer base? If their current service includes a
> > dynamic public IPv4 address, you can't gracefully take it away, without
> > likey violating services T&Cs, government telco regulations etc. So
> > you'll have to go through a formal process of getting agreement with
> > customers to take them away.
>
> I haven't seen any such documents or regulations.
People purchaced the service on the understanding that they would
get a Internet address. A address behind a NAT is not a Internet
address, it's a *shared* Internet address which is a very different
thing.
> Many/most people are _already_ behind a NAT gateway.
They are behind NAT44 which they deployed themselves and control
the configuration of themselves. They can direct incoming traffic
as they see fit. They are NOT restricted to UDP and TCP.
NAT444 is a different kettle of fish. There are lots of things
that you do with a NAT44 that you can't do with a NAT444.
If all you do is browse the web and read email then you won't see
the much of a difference. If you do anything more complicated than
making outgoing queries you will see the difference.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
