[135061] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Jan 15 20:21:39 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110116100000.47c4e40a@opy.nosense.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:19:46 -0800
To: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>, Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 15, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> 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?
>
I've talked to a lot of them...
None of the ones I've talked to have any plans to assign less than a /64
to an end-user.
Hopefully the ones that are planning on less than a /48 will come to their
senses.
Owen
