[135055] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Sat Jan 15 18:30:13 2011
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:00:00 +1030
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSX.4.64.1101151801140.426@cevin-2.local>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:06:06 -0500 (EST)
Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Brian Keefer wrote:
>
> > Actually there are a couple very compelling reasons why PAT will
> > probably be implemented for IPv6:
>
> 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.
How do you know - have you asked 100% of the service providers out
there and they've said unanimously that they're only going to supply a
single IPv6 address?
> 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.
>
> --
> Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss
> ICQ: 2269442
> Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
>
