[135059] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Bulk)
Sat Jan 15 19:22:58 2011
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: "'Mark Smith'"
<nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>,
"Brandon Ross" <bross@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110116100000.47c4e40a@opy.nosense.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:21:52 -0600
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: frnkblk@iname.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I hope the engineers in the organization will just tell their marketing folk
that it's not possible to hand out just one IPv6 address. "Our hardware
doesn't support it."
I think there's still room for ISPs to charge $10/month for a static prefix,
though. And that's technically possible.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Smith
[mailto:nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:30 PM
To: Brandon Ross
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
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
>
