[135066] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Gettys)
Sun Jan 16 00:12:38 2011
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:12:26 -0500
From: Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20110116100000.47c4e40a@opy.nosense.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 01/15/2011 06:30 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?
>
Can we *please* stop this pointless thread?
If not, at least I will inject a fact into this pointless thread with a
factoid from Comcast's IPv6 trial, e.g. my address.... I know it is
sooo terrible to have the gall to do such a treacherous thing as
injecting actual information with counterexample, when such high
velocity hand waving is in progress, but such it will be.
- Jim
jg@jg:~$ /sbin/ifconfig wlan0
wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:23:14:4e:3f:50
inet addr:192.168.1.118 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: 2001:55c:62e5:6320:223:14ff:fe4e:3f50/64
Scope:Global
inet6 addr: fe80::223:14ff:fe4e:3f50/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:2333470 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:2117301 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:2474359067 (2.4 GB) TX bytes:1296861717 (1.2 GB)
