On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:12:26 -0500 Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org> wrote:
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?
I don't think it pointless to network operators - NAT or not has operational impacts on troubleshooting, network design, addressing plans etc. I understand you aren't a network operator, so if you're not interested perhaps you should unsubscribe. Thanks, Mark.