[135053] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Jan 15 18:20:47 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSX.4.64.1101151801140.426@cevin-2.local>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:17:27 -0800
To: Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 15, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Brian Keefer wrote:
>=20
>> Actually there are a couple very compelling reasons why PAT will =
probably be implemented for IPv6:
>=20
> You are neglecting the most important reason, much to my own disdain. =
Service providers will continue to assign only a single IP address to =
residential users unless they pay an additional fee for additional =
addresses. Since many residential users won't stand for an additional =
fee, pressure will be placed on CPE vendors to include v6 PAT in their =
devices.
>=20
> --=20
> Brandon Ross AIM: =
BrandonNRoss
> ICQ: =
2269442
> Skype: brandonross Yahoo: =
BrandonNRoss
I really doubt this will be the case in IPv6.
The few service providers that try this will rapidly find their =
customers moving to service providers that do not.
I know that Comcast is not planning to do this to their customers. I =
can't imagine too many ISPs that might
even attempt to get away with treating their customers worse than =
Comcast does.
Owen
