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)